appendix f - wpdcanada.wpd.de/uploads/tx_projectdownloads/appendix_f_-_full.pdf · letter and...
Post on 26-Jul-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT RENEWABLE ENERGY APPROVAL REPORTS January 2012
A ppendix F
Agency and Municipal Correspondence and Consideration by Project Team
F1 - Generic Letters Accompanying Mail Outs F2 - Federal Agencies and Organizations - Comment/Response Summary F3 - Provincial Agencies and Organizations - Comment/Response Summary F4 - Municipalities - Comment/Response Summary F5 - Elected Officials - Comment/Response Summary F6 - Telecommunication and Radar System Providers- Comment/Response Summary
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT RENEWABLE ENERGY APPROVAL REPORTS January 2012
160960606
Appendix F1
Generic Letters Accompanying Mail-outs
Stantec Consulting Ltd. Suite 1 - 70 Southgate Drive Guelph ON N1G 4P5 Tel: (519) 836-6050 Fax: (519) 836-2493
September 22, 2010 File: 160960606
Agency Address City, Province Postal Code
Attention: Title. FName LName, Position Reference: Springwood Wind Project
Notice of Public Meeting
Please find attached the Notice of Public Meeting for the Springwood Wind Project. As described in the notice, wpd Canada Corporation (wpd) is proposing to develop the Springwood Wind Project (Project) in the Township of Centre Wellington, Wellington County, Ontario.
Your agency or group has been included on the project’s consultation distribution list. If our contact information should be amended, please contact the undersigned at your earliest convenience.
We hope that you can attend the Public Meeting. Alternatively, to provide the Project team with your comments or for further information about the Project, please email us at Shawna.peddle@stantec.com or call Stantec at (519) 836-6050. Written comments can also be mailed or faxed to the undersigned.
For more information please visit the project website: http://canada.wpd.de/ca/projects/in-canada/springwood.html
Sincerely,
STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.
Shawna Peddle Senior Project Manager Tel: (519) 836-6050 Fax: (519) 836-2493 Shawna.peddle@stantec.com
Enclosure: Notice of Public Meeting
CC. Khlaire Parré, wpd Canada Corporation
Stantec Consulting Ltd. Suite 1 - 70 Southgate Drive Guelph ON N1G 4P5 Tel: (519) 836-6050 Fax: (519) 836-2493
August 31, 2011 File: 160960606
Agency Address City, Province Postal Code
Attention: Title. FName LName, Position
Reference: Springwood Wind Project Notice of Final Public Meeting
Please find attached the Notice of Final Public Meeting for the Springwood Wind Project. As described in the notice, wpd Canada Corporation (wpd Canada) is proposing to develop the Springwood Wind Project (Project) in the Township of Centre Wellington, Wellington County, Ontario.
Under Ontario Regulation 359/09, drafts of all reports required as part of the Renewable Energy Approval application for the Project are to be made available for public review and comment for a period of at least 60-days prior to the Final Public Meeting. The Final Public Meeting for the Project is to be held on November 4th, 2011. The documents are available for your review at the Centre Wellington Municipal Offices, 1 MacDonald Square, Elora. The reports are also available at the Project website – go to www.wpd-canada.ca, under PROJECTS, then in Canada, you will find the Springwood link on the left. Or use the direct link: http://canada.wpd.de/ca/projects/in-canada/springwood.html.
We hope that you can attend the Public Meeting. The time and location of the meeting can be found on the attached notice. Alternatively, to provide the Project team with your comments or for further information, please email us at Shawna.peddle@stantec.com or call Stantec at (519) 836-6050. Written comments can also be mailed or faxed to the undersigned.
For more information, please visit the Project website, or contact us at any time.
Sincerely,
STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.
Shawna Peddle Senior Project Manager Tel: (519) 836-6050 Fax: (519) 836-2493 Shawna.peddle@stantec.com
Enclosure: Notice of Final Public Meeting
CC. Khlaire Parré, wpd Canada Corporation
wpd Canada Corporation 405 Britannia Road East, Unit 214, Mississauga, ON L4Z 3E6 (p) 905-712-2400 (f) 905-712-9565
August 12, 2010 [Recipient Address] Dear [Recipient], Please find attached the Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Project for the above-mentioned project. As described in the notice, wpd Canada Corporation (wpd) is proposing to develop the Springwood Wind Farm in The Township of Centre Wellington, Wellington County, Ontario. Turbine coordinates are as follows:
Springwood Turbine Coordinates Turbine # Latitude Longitude
r1 43.783557° -80.411160° r2 43.790195° -80.404557° r3 43.787143° -80.401207° r4 43.783276° -80.398586°
Your organization has been included on the project’s consultation distribution list. We may contact you in the near future regarding the project and potential environmental information your agency may possess to assist in the permitting process. If our contact information should be amended, please contact the undersigned at your earliest convenience.
We look forward to working with you, and obtaining your valuable input, as this project progresses through the regulatory approvals process. To provide the project team with your comments or for further information, please email us at SpringwoodProject @wpd-canada.ca or call us at 1-888-712-2401 or (905) 712-2400. Written comments can also be mailed or faxed to the undersigned.
For more information about the project, please visit us at our website: www.wpd-canada.ca
Sincerely,
wpd Canada Corporation
Khlaire Parré, MA, PMP Dir. of Permits and Environmental Studies Enclosures: Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Project CC: Shawna Peddle, Stantec Consulting Ltd
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT RENEWABLE ENERGY APPROVAL REPORTS January 2012
160960606
Appendix F2
Federal Agencies and Organizations Comment/Response Summary
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-2: Federal Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
agencyfederal_26jan12_fnl.docx 1 of 5
Details of Correspondence
General Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS Environment Canada
Rob Dobos, Senior Environmental Assessment Officer
Letter and Notice
Sent letter on August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a
Project Provided turbine coordinates
N/A N/A
Rob Dobos, Senior Environmental Assessment Officer
Letter and Notice
Sent letter on September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1
N/A N/A
Rob Dobos, Senior Environmental Assessment Officer
Letter and Notice
Sent Letter on August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting
N/A N/A
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) Jim Lyons David McCormack Jessica Coulson Christopher
Padfield Letter and Notice
Sent letter on August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a
Project Provided turbine coordinates
N/A N/A
Jim Lyons David McCormack Jessica Coulson Christopher
Padfield Letter and Notice
Sent letter on September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1
N/A N/A
Jim Lyons David McCormack Jessica Coulson Christopher
Padfield
Sent Letter on August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting
N/A N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-2: Federal Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
2 of 5 agencyfederal_26jan12_fnl.docx
Details of Correspondence
General Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Letter and Notice
Transport Canada Aerodromes
Ontario Michael Lucking,
Civil Aviation Inspector
Sent email to Aerodromes Ontario on May 5, 2010
Does Transport Canada or NAV Canada have any guidance for wind proponents regarding proximity of turbines to private aerodromes?
We are currently working with a client with a proposed project in an area close to an unregistered private aerodrome. If there is guidance available, is it different for a registered or unregistered private air strip?
Received email response from Aerodromes and Air Navigation on June 2, 2010
Registered aerodromes are those that are published in the Canada Flight Supplement, a NAV CANADA publication
Prior to construction of wind turbines, an Aeronautical Obstruction Clearance Form (AOCF) should be submitted to Transport Canada for assessment of lighting and marking requirements, in accordance with CAR 621.19 and the draft standards for wind farms (copy provided).
Wind energy companies are also expected to contact aerodrome and airport operators and NAV Canada prior to construction of wind turbines to determine aeronautical requirements.
Wind energy companies should contact NAV CANADA Land Use Office, due to the fact that the construction of wind turbines may affect air navigation services and facilities provided by NAV CANADA.
Further information provided Transport Canada approvals
will be obtained outside of the REA process
Turbine lighting plan has been developed and provided to TC for review
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-2: Federal Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
agencyfederal_26jan12_fnl.docx 3 of 5
Details of Correspondence
General Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Monique Mousseau Letter and Notice
Sent letter on August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a
Project Provided turbine coordinates
N/A N/A
Clifford Frank Letter and Notice
Sent letter on August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a
Project Provided turbine coordinates
N/A N/A
Transport Canada Emails
Sent email August 24, 2010 Submitted stamped Aeronautical
Obstruction Clearance Form + Siting Spreadsheet- acceptance of lighting requirements
Approval received January 19, 2011
N/A
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) Ralph Brant Mei Ling Chan Fred Hosking Marc-Andre Millaire Gregg Dahl Louise Trepanier Letter and Notice
Sent letter on August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a
Project Provided turbine coordinates
N/A N/A
Ralph Brant Mei Ling Chan Fred Hosking Marc-Andre Millaire Gregg Dahl Louise Trepanier Jeffrey Betker Letter and Notice
Sent letter on September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1
N/A N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-2: Federal Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
4 of 5 agencyfederal_26jan12_fnl.docx
Details of Correspondence
General Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Don Boswell, Senior Claims Analyst
Email received October 7, 2010 Response to letter on September 22,
2010 inquiring about claims in the Project area
In determining your duty to consult, you may wish to contact the First Nations in the vicinity of your area of interest to advise them of your intentions.
Identified that list of First Nations to consult may be obtained using the Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs online map, the INAC Search by Reserve site and the Reporting Centre on Specific Claims.
N/A In combination with information provided by provincial ministries, this information will be used by the team to identify interested First Nations in the vicinity of the Project.
Ralph Brant Mei Ling Chan Fred Hosking Marc-Andre Millaire Gregg Dahl Louise Trepanier Jeffrey Betker Letter and Notice
Sent Letter on August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting
N/A N/A
Don Boswell, Senior Claims Analyst
Email received September 12, 2011 Response to letter on August 31, 2011
inquiring about claims in the Project area
In determining your duty to consult, you may wish to contact the First Nations in the vicinity of your area of interest to advise them of your intentions.
Identified that list of First Nations to consult may be obtained using the Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs online map, the INAC Search by Reserve site and the Reporting Centre on Specific Claims.
N/A
In combination with information provided by provincial ministries, this information will be used by the team to identify interested First Nations in the vicinity of the Project.
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-2: Federal Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
agencyfederal_26jan12_fnl.docx 5 of 5
Details of Correspondence
General Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency) Louise Knox,
Director, Ontario Region
Letter and Notice
Sent letter on August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a
Project Provided turbine coordinates
N/A N/A
Louise Knox Letter and Notice
Sent letter on September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1
N/A N/A
Louise Knox Letter and Notice
Sent Letter on August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting
N/A N/A
Health Canada Kitty Ma Letter and Notice
Sent letter on August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a
Project Provided turbine coordinates
N/A N/A
Kitty Ma Letter and Notice
Sent letter on September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1
N/A N/A
Kitty Ma Letter and Notice
Sent Letter on August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting
N/A N/A
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Chantal Larochelle Letter and Notice
Sent letter on August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a
Project Provided turbine coordinates
N/A N/A
Chantal Larochelle Letter and Notice
Sent letter on September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1
N/A N/A
Chantal Larochelle Letter and Notice
Sent Letter on August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting
N/A N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT RENEWABLE ENERGY APPROVAL REPORTS January 2012
160960606
Appendix F3
Provincial Agencies and Organizations Comment/Response Summary
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx 1 of 35
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Doris Dumais Narren Santos Mansoor Mahmood Meeting
Meeting held on December 9, 2009 wpd Canada staff met with MOE to clarify
regulations and requirements in the REA process. Questions that were asked or clarified were: What regulation does wpd use to assess property setback to receptors, O. Reg. 359/09 or MOE's 2008 Noise Guideline? What are the setbacks of turbines from existing transmission lines? What are the specific standards used for conducting noise studies? What defines a participating sound receptor?
MOE responded: 1) the 2008 Noise Guidelines should be followed. 2) MOE does not have any requirements regarding minimum distances to transmission lines; however REFO offered to validate Hydro One's info with the OPA. No response was ever received from REFO. 3) Participating receptor must have equipment on property (legal agreement only is insufficient). 4) Use ISO-9613-2 for conducting noise studies.
Information received from meeting was incorporated into the REA process.
Doris Dumais, Director Letter
Sent email and letter July 9, 2010 Draft Project Description Report sent. Letter requested that in accordance with
subsection 14(1)(b) of O.Reg.359/09, the MOE provide a list of Aboriginal communities who have or may have constitutionally protected Aboriginal or treaty rights that may be adversely impacted by the proposed Project or that may be interested in any negative environmental effects of the Project.
Received Response on January 4, 2011
MOE provided a list of Aboriginal communities who have or may have constitutionally protected aboriginal or treaty rights that may be adversely impacted by the project or otherwise may be interested in any negative environmental effects of the project, in accordance with section 14 of Ontario Regulation 359/09.
Upon receiving the Aboriginal consultation list from the MOE, the Project distribution list was updated and consultation with Aboriginal communities regarding the Project included all Aboriginal communities as identified by the MOE, and the Chippewas of Georgina Island, which were identified by Stantec, and remained on the list, as engagement had already begun when the MOE list was received.
Mansoor Mahmood, MOE
Carine Schofield, MOE Narren Santos, MOE Denton Miller, MOE Thomas Nikolakakos,
MEI/REFO Meeting
Project Start-up Meeting with MOE and REFO held on July 14, 2010
wpd staff met with MOE staff in order to clarify and seek guidance related to REA approval requirements and consultation expectations. This included Aboriginal consultation, crystallization, incremental rules, how to treat vacant lots, property setback lines and other regulatory
ABORIGINAL LIST: All submitted PDRs are considered adequate for this stage in the process by the MOE and passed on for Aboriginal list generation.
INCREMENTAL PROJECTS: Should not be piecemealed – combine for REA if possible; if not possible, amend REA and
Discussions will feed into preparation of reports and consultation initiatives
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
2 of 35 appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of the Environment (MOE) requirements. conduct same level of study and
consultation for phase 2. CRYSTALLIZATION DATE -
New policy to be released at the end of the month with various other amendments to O. Reg. 359/09 - When a layout is almost finalized, submit to MOE with a letter asking to ‘crystallize’ the layout – MOE will send an acknowledgement letter stating that the layout is crystallized, and the REA must be submitted within 6 months (else the letter expires in 6 months from issue date).
VACANT LOTS - 2008 Noise Guidelines (consider development on vacant residentially-zoned lots to be in a position consistent with normal building practices for the area, i.e., close to the roadway) or O. Reg. 359/09 – Vacant Lot must have a receptor in the MIDDLE of the lot? Use the 2008 Guidelines, NOT O. Reg. 359/09, new Regulations to come.
PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS - Hub height, OR blade + 10m, if we can demonstrate no adverse effects. Demonstrate the blade + 10m is an appropriate property line setback that does not affect health and safety, the MOE will accept this in siting.
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx 3 of 35
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Doris Dumais Mansoor Mahmood Cathy Watson Email
Sent email July 21, 2010 Emailed copy of the Draft Project
Description Report - preliminary to requesting the Aboriginal Contact List
N/A N/A
Doris Dumais Jane Glassco Bill Bardswick Barb Slattery, West
Central Region Letter and Notice
Sent Letter August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Project Provided turbine coordinates
N/A N/A
Doris Dumais Jane Glassco Bill Bardswick Barb Slattery, West
Central Region Letter and Notice
Sent Letter on September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1
N/A N/A
Narren Santos Email
Sent email on October 27, 2010 Question to MOE concerning land
severance and recognition of noise receptors. A land owner in the area had submitted an application to sever their land after the crystallization of the Springwood project. As such, wpd had not placed a noise receptor on the land. wpd sought clarification from MOE to interpret O. Reg. 359/09, Section 54.1 with a request sent from Stantec on behalf of wpd.
No Written response received however regulations were amended on Jan 1, 2011 clarifying that crystallization secured the Springwood Project as publicized.
Discussions will feed into preparation of reports and consultation initiatives
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
4 of 35 appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Mansoor Mahmood,
Manager, Renewable Energy Approvals
Sent email on October 29, 2010 Requested Crystallization date for the
Springwood Wind Project. Provided Notice of Public Open House 1,
Sample Agency and Landowner letters, and Siting Map and UTM Coordinates.
Received a crystallization date of 29 Oct, 2011
Discussions will feed into preparation of reports and consultation initiatives
Mansoor Mahmood, Manager, Renewable Energy Approvals
Letter
Received letter on November 4, 2010 The MOE is proceeding in the direction of
recognizing wind turbine layouts that have been made publicly available prior to the proposed amendments to O. Reg. 359/09 coming into force.
With regards to your question about the implications of making changes to crystallized wind turbine layouts, MOE is currently considering how to address the issue.
MOE understands that in order to ensure that the Project will continue to meet regulatory setback prohibitions in the face of unforeseen and changing circumstances, wind turbines may have to be relocated.
MOE recognizes wpd’s sincere efforts to adapt to these challenges.
MOE encourages the submission of comments and concerns on the Environmental Registry so that they can be considered as MOE finalizes the amendments to O. Reg. 359/09. Comments can be made until November 21, 2010.
N/A Discussions will feed into preparation of reports and consultation initiatives
Doris Dumais, Director, Approvals Program
Sent letter on November 12, 2010 N/A Discussions will feed into preparation of reports and
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx 5 of 35
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Letter The draft PDR for the Springwood Wind
Project was provided to MOE staff on July 9, 2010, with a summary of the Project as required by O. Reg. 359/09.
A follow-up request for updated mapping was received and responded to on October 25, 2010.
In order to inform the communities in a timely manner and to meet tight timelines for the Commercial Operation Date, we must submit the Notice to Engage and conduct Public Meetings. Without the definitive Aboriginal List, there is a chance of having to redo the open houses.
In accordance with subsection 14. (1)(b) of the Regulation, Stantec is following up to respectfully request that MOE provide the Aboriginal list.
consultation initiatives Requested mapping was
provided
Doris Dumais Letter Follow-up Phone Call
Letter sent December 1, 2010 Regarding archaeological requirements
under the REA process. wpd wrote to clarify regulations and make
suggestions for REA review. wpd felt that Stage 2 archaeological requirements make planning and completion of wind projects difficult because of seasonal time considerations which also impacts construction periods and makes completion of the projects within the contract period much more difficult.
In a follow up by phone, MOE suggested that we call REFO to coordinate a meeting with MTC and MOE.
N/A
Narren Santos Mansoor Mahmood Email
Sent email on March 16, 2011 Following-up regarding the Oct. 29, 2010
request confirming the status of the Springwood project crystallization.
MOE asked for more information, which was provided, to ensure that the regulations regarding crystallization are met. MOE also confirmed Regulations and
Discussions will feed into preparation of reports and consultation initiatives
Further information was provided
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
6 of 35 appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Confirmation had not been received requirements under O. Reg.
359/09 regarding the inclusion of noise receptors. They confirmed that receptors and building permits that existed up to the day before notice is posted need to be taken into consideration.
By regulation, once published, the crystallization is automatic and the only reason for sending the info (Turbine location spreadsheet) to MOE, will be for them to log in their database. Within a week they will review and comment ONLY if the project is impacting another project related to cumulative noise. If we do not hear from them within a week, we will be clear.
Narren Santos Email Follow-up Phone Call
Received email March 22, 2011 Noted that wpd Canada is required to
consider adjacent existing and crystallized wind farms within 5km of the Springwood Wind Project in the Noise Impact Assessment.
This email is to confirm that to date, the MOE is not aware of any other existing or crystallized wind turbines within 5km of the Project.
However, a proponent would be required to consider all noise receptors that existed up to the day before you release your draft site plan notice or up until the date before the earliest of the following (if turbine layout available prior to Jan. 1, 2011):
o Issue a Notice of Completion in
Phoned on March 23, 2011 Call to clarify crystallization
regulations and date for Springwood Project.
MOE clarified that by regulation crystallization date is automatic. Projects are grandfathered provided they publish according to regulations.
N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx 7 of 35
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of the Environment (MOE) accordance with O. Reg. 116/06;
o Published a draft Site Plan in accordance with requirements;
o Submitted and REA application; or o Publicly disclosed the location of
proposed wind turbines.
Doris Dumais, Director Email with supporting
documents
Sent email on April 8, 2011. Attached letter dated April 7, 2011
Request for extension on the crystallization of the Springwood Wind Project under Section 55 (2.6) of O. Reg. 359/09
Provided evidence of making all reasonable effort to submit REA application within 6 months of the Notice
Respectfully request extension of one year (until June 1, 2012)
Provided Wind Turbine UTM Coordinates, Notice of Public Meeting #1, and map of Study Area
Follow up confirming receipt and clarifying time line when wpd may get word on the crystallization extension. Explained to MOE that time was an issue because it influenced how wpd handled a land severance issue with a landowner in the area.
Correspondence sent also on Apr 25, 2011
N/A N/A
Doris Dumais, Director Email
Sent email on April 25, 2011 Follow-up regarding the request for an
extension of the crystallization for the Springwood Project.
Received Response letter dated June 29, 2011
MOE has considered the request and is of the view that wpd Canada has made all reasonable efforts to submit a REA application within the six-month period referred to in subsection
N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
8 of 35 appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of the Environment (MOE) 54 (1.5) of O. Reg. 359/09
This letter serves as confirmation of the decision to extend the six-month period until June 1, 2012
wpd Canada must submit a REA application to the MOE within this extended time period or paragraph 4 of subsection 54(1.2) of O. Reg. 359/09 ceases to apply to the Project.
Crystallization extension authorized.
Narren Santos Email with supporting
documents
Sent email June 6, 2011 Further follow up with MOE staff concerning
the crystallization extension application. Further information was forwarded to MOE
over email and confirmed over the phone concerning the projects goals and timeline.
N/A N/A
Narren Santos Email
Sent Email June 21, 2011 wpd has every intention of meeting the
Commercial Operation Date with the turbines, as crystallized on September 24, 2010
Progress on major milestones to date include:
o Received first set of comments from MNR on the NHA submission. Environmental consultant in the process of responding to the questions/comments.
o Archaeological Stage 2 completed and sent to MTC.
o Anticipating submitting Municipal Consultation Form and beginning the formal Municipal Consultation
N/A N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx 9 of 35
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of the Environment (MOE) process in July.
wpd believes it is prudent to allow some time for unforeseen circumstances when requesting a crystallization extension date and respectfully requests an extension of one year, until June 1, 2012.
Narren Santos Email Follow-up phone call
Sent email June 21, 2011 Requested guidance as to what documents
are required when submitting documents to the municipalities 90 days prior to the last public open house. wpd wanted to confirm whether comments from MNR and MTC were required to be submitted to Municipalities if initial notice of the project was submitted prior to the amendments to O. Reg. 359/09.
Follow-up phone call on July 14, 2011
Confirmed that written comments from MNR and MTC were not required to be submitted to the municipalities 90 days prior to the final public meeting, provided that the notice had been published prior to Jan 1, 2011, according to regulations.
N/A
Doris Dumais Jane Glassco Bill Bardswick Barb Slattery, West
Central Region Letter and Notice
Sent email August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting
N/A N/A
Narren Santos Email
Sent email on October 24, 2011 Regarding the request from the Belwood
area's wind energy opposition group, Oppose Belwood Wind Farms (OBWF). They had requested an Open House format change from wpd. wpd provided the ministry with a response to OBWF request.
N/A Noted wpd’s willingness to meet and discuss questions or concerns prior to the Public Meeting.
Addressed to Doris Dumais (MOE), and/or wpd and MOE.
Public Correspondence through Letter and email
October 2010 - November 2011 wpd responded to 7 different pieces of
correspondence from the public who either directed their questions to MOE or MOE directed wpd to provide an answer. All
N/A N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
10 of 35 appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of the Environment (MOE) emails that included a CC to the MOE were responded to (with a copy to MOE) and summarized under the public consultation section.
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) April Nix, Planning
Intern, Guelph District Email
Sent email June 4, 2010 wpd is proposing to develop the Belwood
Wind Project in Wellington County Provided background information about the
Project Stantec is completing the Natural Heritage
Assessment for the site and would like to meet to discuss the proposed site investigation work program
Requested information for scheduling a meeting
Received email on June 4, 2010 Identified availability for a
meeting Does the study area cross into
East Garafraxa at all? If it does, the Midhurst District staff will also need to attend
Please send the study area information and work plan as soon as possible.
Who does wpd represent?
Further information provided
April Nix, Planning Intern, Guelph District
Sent email on June 7, 2010 Project Area does not enter East Garafraxa. Continued scheduling and meeting
organization Provided information regarding wpd The workplan and mapping will be sent
ASAP, also intended to serve as a formal request for data
Request for any additional background information for the area
Received email on June 7, 2010 Confirmed date, time and
location of meeting
N/A
Sent email to April Nix, Planning Intern,
Sent email with attached letter June 8, 2010 Formally request any relevant data on natural
Received email with attached letter dated June 24, 2010
N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx 11 of 35
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Guelph District
Attached Letter addressed to Mike Stone, District Planner
features and potentially present significant wildlife habitat available for the Belwood Wind Project’s Study Area
Provided background information and site context to MNR
Outline the proposed site investigation work program for MNR’s review and endorsement
Attached Draft Natural Heritage Features map
MNR provides information about the requirements for the NHA and EIS report under the Regulation and where to find relevant information to complete the reports.
April Nix, Planning Intern, Guelph District
Al Murray Meeting
Meeting on June 17, 2010 Introductory meeting with MNR's Guelph
office to discuss a work plan for the site investigation program in support of the Natural Heritage Assessment requirements for the Springwood Wind Project.
Discussed Project details and timelines, ESA/REA integration, requirements and review period, field investigation requirements, report writing, and current records of natural heritage features in the Study Area.
In preparation for the meeting Stantec and wpd staff were in frequent communication with MNR staff (by phone).
AN indicated that the EEMP should be submitted with/shortly after the NHA
Stantec advised to look at the technical details from within the regulation and make sure things are technically clear in the NHA report.
AN advised to refer to the bat database and ensure bat habitat is addressed
AN to provide additional comments regarding species at risk
MNR suggestions were followed when completing the NHA/EIS Report
April Nix, Renewable Energy Planning Ecologist
Phone Conversation
Phoned on June 28, 2010 Review of APRD requirements AN notes that fish (apart from species
covered under the Endangered Species Act) are part of the water report (to be submitted to MOE)
Species at risk are part of the APRD requirements, separate from the NHA/EIS and are to be submitted to MNR.
N/A Suggestions from conversation with MNR used when preparing the NHA/EIS, Water Assessment and Water Body Report and the APRD.
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
12 of 35 appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Asked if there is suitable habitat for Redside
Dace. AN indicated that habitat on subject lands is likely unsuitable for redside dace.
April Nix, Renewable Energy Planning Ecologist
Conversation
Conversation on June 29, 2010 AN notes requirements are specific to REA AN notes APRD requirements are separate
from NHA submission – not for MOE APRD requirements include petroleum and
species at risk Petroleum requirements for wells within 75 m
of Project components APRD is not part of REA but is part of what
MNR needs to determine if other permits are required.
Stantec must confirm presence/absence of species at risk using background information or if there is suitable habitat
If there is suitable habitat, then a site investigation is required to confirm, and report is required
Timeline: submit NHA and APRD, then MNR will advise regarding permits
Suggestions from conversation with MNR used when preparing the NHA/EIS and the APRD.
Sent to: Art Timmerman, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Guelph District
Received from: Michele Bonaldo, Resource Management Clerk, Guelph District
Letter
Sent Letter June 30, 2010 Attached completed Licence Application to
Collect Fish for Scientific Purposes for the proposed Belwood Wind Project site.
Provided brief description of the Project and rationale for requesting the licence.
If MNR has data indicating the presence of Redside Dace, and would prefer no sampling occur in these watercourses, it is requested that a permit be issued for all other watercourses in the vicinity.
Received Letter dated July 30, 2010
Provided Licence to Collect Fish for Scientific Purposes, valid upon signing the Authorization and Conditions attached.
Signed licence must be returned by fax before commencement of work.
All collections and sampling must comply with best management practices in the enclosed technical bulletin.
Attached Fish Collection Record, required for each sampling location, must be returned when complete.
Application for license provided
Art Timmerman, Fish Received email July 8, 2010 N/A Data provided used in developing
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx 13 of 35
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and Wildlife Biologist, Guelph District
For the Belwood Wind Project, please see the attached map showing locations where fisheries and/or fish habitat data have been collected in the past.
Note that redside dace have been captured in the past in the study area.
field programs and reports Layout avoids watercourse where
Redside Dace noted
Art Timmerman, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Guelph District
Sent/received emails between July 19-21, 2010
Scheduling a time to view MNR fisheries data for the Project
N/A N/A
Renee Bowler Mike Stone Letter and Notice
Sent Letter August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Project Provided turbine coordinates
N/A N/A
Renee Bowler Mike Stone Letter and Notice
Sent letter on September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1
N/A N/A
April Nix, Renewable Energy Planning Ecologist
Emails
Sent email on October 6, 2010 Providing updates to the Belwood Wind
Project Name changed to “Springwood Wind Project” Transmission line and connection point have
changed Requested additional natural heritage, rare
species and fisheries data for the additional area
Mapping from LIO and search for rare species has been completed
Please let us know if there are additional species that should be considered
Proposed transmission routing crosses a number of additional watercourses, and someone from the aquatics team will contact
Received email November 1, 2010
Attached letter regarding supplemental background information request
Provided information regarding the natural environment in the expanded Study Area
Parts of the provincial significant Speed-Lutteral-Swan creek complex and provincial significant Living Springs wetland complex are located in the expanded study area
MNR staff are also aware of an active osprey nest on a hydro pole near the intersection of the
Suggestions from conversation with MNR used when preparing the NHA/EIS, Water Assessment and Water Body Report and the APRD.
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
14 of 35 appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) MNR regarding fisheries data
Project Location and Study Area map attached
2nd line of W. and Wellington 19 south of the study area
A known waterfowl winter concentration area is located along the stretch of the Grand River within the expanded study area
Wooded areas are also located within the expanded study area
Provided information regarding APRD requirements for the expanded study area
It is recommended that information available for the expanded study area also be reviewed from the County of Wellington, the Municipality of Centre Wellington and the Grand River Conservation Authority
Also attached Engineer’s Report Template for Petroleum Resource Operations
April Nix, Renewable Energy Planning Ecologist
Phone conversation
Phone conversation on October 6, 2010 AN noted potential concern regarding Grand
River crossing regarding species at risk mussels, and whether the bed of the Grand is on Crown Land
AN indicated that overhead lines would be simpler from a permitting perspective
AN noted that depending on types of works, permits may be required
Conversation with MNR helped when looking at additional permit requirements.
Suggestions from conversation with MNR used when preparing the NHA/EIS, Water Assessment and Water Body Report and the APRD.
Art Timmerman, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Guelph District
Sent email October 29, 2010 Would like to photocopy MNR background
fisheries data for the study area in the attached map
N/A Suggestions from conversation with MNR used when preparing the NHA/EIS, Water Assessment and Water Body Report and the
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx 15 of 35
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Request photocopies of Wetland Evaluation
Records for the North Cumnock PSW Complex and the Living Springs PSW Complex
Requested date and time when information could be collected from the MNR Guelph Office
APRD.
Art Timmerman, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Guelph District
Phone Call
Left Message on November 1, 2010 Regarding background fisheries data request
N/A N/A
Art Timmerman, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Guelph District
Letter
Sent Letter on November 11, 2010 Submission of the fish collection permit
application to request a revision to the area where there is permission to fish
Final location of the transmission line has changed and is now proposed to run along 2nd Line, through Eramosa Twp.
Stantec is proposing to sample watercourses along that alignment, with the exception of the Grand River.
Map included with proposed sampling locations
Electrofishing surveys will be completed to characterize fish populations that may exist at each site
Data will be used to assess possible Project impacts
Sampling site encompasses area of approx. 50 m upstream and downstream of each of the proposed crossing locations
Electrofishing activities will consist of a backpack operator and one netter
Received email on November 12, 2010
MNR will process the fish collection permit application, but cannot guarantee that the licence will be ready on November 16 at 1:00pm.
The attached map has been reviewed, and the licence will allow Stantec to electofish in Irvine Creek and its tributaries, unnamed tributaries of the Grand River and tributaries of the Speed River in West Garafraxa and Eramosa Geographic townships within the vicinity of the West Garafraxa 2nd Line.
Several of the proposed collection sites on the Irvine Creek tributaries are upstream of sites where Redside Dace have been collected in the past. At those sites, extra care in handling and identifying fish
Suggestions from conversation with MNR used when preparing the NHA/EIS, Water Assessment and Water Body Report and the APRD.
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
16 of 35 appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) species should take place.
If possible, AT would like the opportunity to accompany MP when those sites are sampled.
Art Timmerman, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Guelph District
Sent email November 17, 2010 Attached is a scan of the Study Area The turbine area north of Sideroad 15 has
been sampled. Plan is to sample the transmission line area south of that.
If interested in sampling the northeast area of the turbine locations with historical Redside Dace data, please let us know and property access will be arranged.
That area, (Irvine Creek) was not sampled when the electrofishing was completed due to the potential presence of Redside Dace.
N/A Suggestions from conversation with MNR used when preparing the NHA/EIS, Water Assessment and Water Body Report and the APRD.
Karolyne Pickett Sent email on November 23, 2010 Attached is an excel sheet with the NHIC
information and a map showing the project study area and NHIC grids.
Black Redhorse and Redside Dace are in NHIC records.
Received email on November 25, 2010
Stantec’s search appears to have picked up Redside Dace records from Irvine Creek and Black Redhorse from the Grand River.
Suggestions from conversation with MNR used when preparing the NHA/EIS, Water Assessment and Water Body Report and the APRD.
April Nix, Renewable Energy Planning Ecologist
Phone conversation
Phoned on November 30, 2010 MNR notes petroleum well requirements and
referred to template MNR notes that species at risk and petroleum
information is not part of the NHA and to be submitted as separate reports directly to MNR.
Notes known presence of one well within 75m of transmission line
Suggestions from conversation with MNR used when preparing the NHA/EIS, Water Assessment and Water Body Report and the APRD.
April Nix, Renewable Energy Planning Ecologist
Sent letter on February 23, 2011 Submission of the Natural Heritage
N/A N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx 17 of 35
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Letter Assessment and Environmental Impact Study
(enclosed) Submitted for MNR’s confirmation that
applicable evaluation criteria or procedures established or accepted by MNR were used, and that the project location is not in a provincial park or conservation reserve
Please note that endangered and threatened species are being addressed through a separate submission
The Approval and Permitting Requirements Report and a post-construction monitoring plan (PCMP) for birds and bats will be submitted to MNR shortly
April Nix, Renewable Energy Planning Ecologist
Phone Conversation
Stantec called MNR on March 2, 2011 MNR noted that the writing quality and
structure of Stantec’s NHA reports reflect the regulation.
MNR indicated that final review time will depend on whether the NHA is well-written and the number of features that occur within 120m
Stantec provided MNR with a status update of the NHA: it is currently being revised, as Project Location has changed to eliminate transmission line.
N/A N/A
April Nix, Renewable Energy Planning Ecologist
Letter
Sent letter on March 3, 2011 Resubmission of the Springwood NHA, as
Hydro One informed us they would assume the Transmission line (TX).
No content was changed; just all references to the TX Project Location and any natural
N/A N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
18 of 35 appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) features associated with this area were deleted.
MNR was called in advance and informed of the resubmitted documents.
Erin Harkins, Renewable Energy Planning Ecologist, Guelph District
Phone Conversation
Phone Conversation on April 7, 2011 EH notes that the Project Location is sited
over 120 m from most features MNR will send comments on NHA shortly.
MNR requests submission of EEMP and APRD
Feature 1 mapping needs to be clarified
EEMP and APRD were submitted to MNR
Erin Harkins, Renewable Energy Planning Ecologist, Guelph District
Phone call
Phone call to MNR on April 15, 2011 Stantec on behalf of wpd Canada checked in
with the Guelph District MNR regarding the NHA review.
MNR asked that the EEMP plan be forwarded to their attention to help with their comments, which was done.
They also noted verbally to Stantec that more details about wildlife habitat in feature 1 should be provided.
The NHA submission reflects comments provided
EEMP was provided
Erin Harkins, Renewable Energy Planning Ecologist, Guelph District
Letter Received Email Response
Received Letter dated May 9, 2011 Received comments back from MNR in
response to the first NHA submission. MNR indicated that they could not provide confirmation until certain requirements are completed or are clarified. Editorial changes were required, but no additional studies were identified.
There remain some requirements from the REA Regulation that have not been addressed or need to be clarified. Additional clarification is also required for the APRD, and should be addressed separately from the NHA.
Deficiencies in the NHA and EIS reports are noted and need to be addressed. The report needs to be revised considering these
Email sent June 30, 2011 Resubmission of the revised
NHA Report. The Springwood NHA has been
revised based on MNR comments.
Provided MNR with revised report in tracked changes.
NHA/EIS Report amended based on MNR comments
Revisions were made to the NHA/EIS main document, Appendix A (Figures 2, 3 and 4), Appendix B (Tables), and Appendix E (Field forms).
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx 19 of 35
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) concerns and then re-submitted to MNR.
Please be aware that species or habitat protected under the ESA, 2007 that may be impacted by any aspects of this project must be identified in a SAR report under separate cover. It is recommended that this report be provided to MNR as soon as it is available.
It is highly recommended that all revisions made to the NHA report regarding MNR comments are tracked.
Ian Hagman, District Manager, Guelph District MNR
Letter
Received Letter July 14, 2011 The MNR has reviewed the NHA and EIS
Report in accordance with O. Reg. 359/09, for the Springwood Wind Project
MNR makes the following confirmations: o The determination of the existence
of natural features and boundaries of natural features was made using applicable evaluation criteria or procedures established or accepted by MNR.
o The site investigation and records review were conducted using applicable evaluation criteria or procedures established or accepted by MNR.
o The evaluation of significance or provincial significance of the natural features was conducted using applicable evaluation criteria or procedures established or accepted by MNR (if required).
o The project location is not in a provincial park or conservation
N/A N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
20 of 35 appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) reserve.
o The EIS report has been prepared in accordance with procedures established by MNR.
This confirmation letter is valid for the Project as proposed in the NHA/EIS. Should any changes be made to the proposed project that would alter the NHA, MNR may need to undertake additional review of the NHA.
Where specific commitments have been made by the applicant in the NHA, MNR expects that they be considered in MOE’s REA decision and, if approved, be implemented by the applicant.
Be aware that the project may be subject to further legislative approvals prior to construction, as outlined in MNR’s Approvals and Permitting Requirements Document.
Erin Harkins, Renewable Energy Planning Ecologist, Guelph District
Sent email on August 10, 2011 Provided MNR with the Springwood Wind
Project Species at Risk report.
N/A N/A
Renee Bowler Mike Stone Letter and Notice
Sent email August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting
N/A N/A
Erin Harkins, Renewable Energy Planning Ecologist, Guelph District
Email Chain
Sent email on September 28, 2011 Attached document provides clarification and
additional details as to why there are not considered to be implications under the Endangered Species Act for either the Spotted Turtle or Butler’s Gartersnake for the Project
Received email on October 26, 2011
Thank you for providing more information about the Butler’s Gartersnake and Spotted Turtle habitats; MNR now has all the information required for the two species
Provided clarification to MNR regarding why there are not considered to be implications under the Endangered Species Act for either the Spotted Turtle or Butler’s Gartersnake for the Project
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx 21 of 35
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) As Herbert Wilson Drain is
considered contributing habitat for Redside Dace, MNR would like to see a description of the methodology to be used for culvert installation
Erin Harkins, Renewable Energy Planning Ecologist, Guelph District
Received email with attached letter on November 15, 2011
Further to the additional requirements outlined in the APRD, MNR’s petroleum wells data indicates no known petroleum well locations within the project site.
Proponents of renewable energy projects must be aware of the possibility of encountering petroleum wells and must be prepared to address and, where necessary, mitigate the risks identified.
MNR cannot guarantee the accuracy of the petroleum wells data, as some information is historical and may be inaccurate or incomplete.
Guelph District staff do not anticipate that the Activity will contravene the ESA with respect to Redside Dace habitat, provided MNR’s listed conditions regarding the culvert are followed.
Guelph District staff do not anticipate a contravention of the ESA with respect to plant and reptile species at risk provided the listed conditions are met.
Sent email on November 17, 2011
Thanked MNR for their letter of advice regarding Species at Risk for the Springwood Wind Project.
Noted that all mitigation measures recommended in the MNR letter have been added to the Construction Plan Report for the Project.
MNR’s recommended mitigation measures were added to the Construction Plan Report.
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
22 of 35 appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx
Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) Karla Barboza Katherine Kirzati Letter and Notice
Sent Letter August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Project Provided turbine coordinates
N/A N/A
Ministry of Tourism and Culture
Fall 2010 - ongoing wpd Canada has been regularly working
with hired archaeologists for each of their projects including Springwood. Paul Racher of ARA has been the main contact for the Springwood Project. As well, wpd has consistently communicated with MTC via the hired archaeological consultants since Fall 2010 to obtain clarity on the regulations, Standards and Guidelines.
Communication to landowners on how to properly prepare lands for Stage 2 Assessment.
Proper scheduling to take into consideration MTC's standards and guidelines, weather, habitat for Species at Risk as well as farmer's planting and harvesting seasons.
Information was provided to landowners on how to prepare lands for Stage 2 assessment
Study design altered to account for MTC’s requirements
Karla Barboza Katherine Kirzati Letter and Notice
Sent email on September 22, 2010 Attached Notice of Public Meeting #1
N/A N/A
Chris Schiller (MTC) Mariflor Toneatto (MTC) Mirrun Zaveri (MEI) Tomas Nikolakakos
(REFO) Tele-conference Call
Tele-conference call held on April 26, 2011 Topics of discussion: 1. The requirement for Stage 2
Archaeological (Arch) assessment when Stage 1 identifies low potential. Regulations require Stage 2 on the entire project even if only some of the project area shows high potential for archaeological finds. wpd argues that Stage 2 arch work should only be conducted on the smaller areas of interest.
2. Latitude for test pitting versus ploughing areas of ESA protected habitat. wpd suggested Test pitting is more flexible and did not endanger the land of environmentally sensitive areas. Regulations from MTC mandated ploughing which contradicted MNR requirements.
2A. latitude for test pitting was also
MTC has taken the requests for test-pitting vs. ploughing under advisement, but re-stated that areas that can be ploughed must still be ploughed and recommended doing the arch work in seasons which posed less threat to species at risk.
Current plowing and discing practices can be utilized in lieu of mulboard plows provided that the soil is at least 80% visible.
MTC also decided to allow for stage 1 archaeological assessments in pockets of low areas of archaeological potential vs. requiring stage 2 in the entire project area.
Stage 2 arch work is still required for high archaeological potential.
N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx 23 of 35
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) requested in areas of ‘no till’ farming practices.
3. Latitude on moldboard ploughs and test pitting no till lands. MTC mandated moldboard ploughing. This method is out of date and damaging to the soil. Machines were also hard to find making this requirement onerous. wpd suggested alternative tilling methods.
4. Making Stage 2 Arch work a condition of REA versus a requirement for application of an REA. Requiring Stage 2 arch work before REA approval severally restricted the wind projects time table because of seasonal issues related to farming and weather. Requiring stage 2 put most wind projects including Springwood in danger of not meeting the Commercial Operation Date.
As part of an extensive ongoing discussion with MTC, directly and through MOE REFO division and via archaeological groups, wpd has sought to clarify and alter requirements specified by MTC. The goal of these requests was streamline the arch process and limit Ministerial conflicts of interest.
The Archaeological Assessment proceeded within MTCs guidelines as clarified.
Archaeology Administrative Coordinator
Programs and Services Branch
Letter
Sent Letter June 14, 2011 from Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.
Enclosed three copies of the Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, a digital copy on CD and the Archaeological Site Record form for Springwood 1.
This Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment was completed in accordance with Ontario Regulation 359/09 under Part V.0.1 of the Environmental Protection Act.
N/A N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
24 of 35 appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) The proponent has asked that their review
be expedited on an emergency basis, as the MTC’s comments are required for public review at least 60 days before the final public meeting.
A date of July 22, 2011 is requested for the review of this report.
A Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment for this project has been completed by Stantec and submitted to the MTC.
Speakers from MOE/MTC/MNR/CanWEA
Forum
Forum held on July 8, 2011 MOE & CanWEA Session for Wind Energy
Developers: REA 101
Received tips and techniques for successful REA submission. Preview of Technical Guide to Renewable Energy Approvals
Information learned was applied to the REA process for the Project.
Ian Hember, Archaeology Review Officer
Letter
Received letter dated July 17, 2011 MTC has reviewed the Stage 1
Archaeological Assessment As a result of the review, MTC accepts the
report into the Provincial register of archaeological reports.
MTC concurs with the recommendation that the property with archaeological potential should be subject to a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment.
N/A A Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment was completed for properties with archaeological potential and submitted for MTC review on June 14, 2011.
Adam Pollock, Archaeology Review Officer
Received letter dated July 26, 2011 MTC has reviewed the Stage 2
Archaeological Assessment report. Specific issues that need to be addressed
were identified. The identified concerns must be addressed
prior to MTC being able to concur with recommendations made in the report.
One the revisions have been completed, the
N/A Report updated to reflect MTC comments
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx 25 of 35
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) revised report must be submitted prior to Oct. 24, 2011 and will be reviewed and a response provided.
Ian Hember, Archaeology Review Officer
Letter
Letter on July 26, 2011 MTC returned Stage 2 Assessment with a
request for a Stage 3; however, the Archaeologist (ARA) felt that a Stage 3 was not required according to MTC's own guidelines or threshold for cultural heritage value or interest. MTC requested additional documentation to validate this claim. The information was provided and the Assessment Report was re-submitted to MTC on August 10, 2011
ARA was able to provide evidence to the Ministry that Stage 3 arch work was not required per MTC's own Standards and Guidelines.
After the Stage 2 was resubmitted with this information, the MTC concurred.
N/A
Twelve Archaeologists from the Province and wpd.
The meeting was directed by Dr. Peter Armstrong, Lawson Chair of Canadian Archaeology
Meeting
Meeting held August 9, 2011 wpd attended the Meeting of Archaeologists
held at the Ontario Museum of Archaeology to gain a better understanding of the challenges that the Archaeologists were facing due with MTC's reviews. Almost all of the reports were being rejected by the MTC on editorial grounds (not content). Only 3 reports between April and August 2011 had been accepted. Re-submissions were both very costly and time consuming, thereby threatening project timelines.
The meeting was created for the Archaeologists in the Province, to discuss approaches to ministry report review and imposition of standards and guidelines. Their concerns regarded issues that were arising as a result of a series of recent decisions concerning the interpretation and implementation of the “Reporting Archaeological Field Work” module of the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for
A letter was crafted by one of the Archaeologists and circulated for input from all attendees and subsequently submitted to MTC. wpd also submitted the situation to CanWEA. The situation however, has not changed. Archaeologists have resigned themselves to submitting the reports to follow the new guidelines.
N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
26 of 35 appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) Consultant Archaeologists. (S&Gs). Their second major concern is the manner in which this change of emphasis, from quality of data collection and completeness of presentation to one of an overriding concern for formatting with subsequent loss of the ability to convey information relative to the uniqueness of different projects.
Paula Kulpa, Heritage Planner
Letter
Received letter on August 15, 2011 MTC’s written comments as required by s.
23(3)(a) of O. Reg. 359/09 under the Environmental Protection Act regarding heritage assessments undertaken for the Springwood Wind Project
Bases on the information contained in the submitted reports, the Ministry is satisfied with the heritage assessments.
Please note the Ministry makes no representation or warranty as to the completeness, accuracy or quality of the heritage assessment reports.
The Ministry is satisfied with the recommendations provided in the reports.
This letter does not waive any requirements under the Ontario Heritage Act.
It is the proponent’s responsibility to obtain any necessary approvals or licenses.
N/A N/A
To MTC From Archaeological
Service Providers Letter
Letter sent on August 23, 2011 Letter sent to MTC from 20 different
consultant archaeological service providers from around Ontario (several of whom represent wpd on our Wind Projects including ARA for the Springwood Project).
The letter concerned the Ministry's 2011
MTC responded on Sept 2, 2011 Agreed that a meeting should be
conducted now that the S&Gs have been put in place for a period.
Invited representatives from the group of archaeological
N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx 27 of 35
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) for Consultant Archaeologists.
The concerns expressed by the Archaeologist are three fold including:
o 1. The Ministry's focus on document formatting specifications which are not flexible and do not appear to reflect "actual archaeology. The changes were not part of the Technical Advisory Group and appear that they were not developed with any recognition of the wide variety of the types of projects that are carried out.
o 2. The group is concerned about how the emphasis from quality of data collection to concerns over formatting was "sprung" on licensed professionals without communication to the greater community.
o 3. Concern that the goals of the S&Gs (to ensure archaeological resources are managed efficiently) has been lost to trivial formatting and copy editing of reports.
The group asked that the Ministry consult with archaeological community to address the current problems. wpd also provided input on the letter
consultants to meet so that concerns with the implementation of the S&Gs could be addressed.
Ongoing discussions continue.
Ian Hember Email
Email on August 26, 2011 Archaeological Research Associates (ARA)
kept in contact with MTC to determine the timeline to complete the comments on the re-submission of the Stage 2 report, as they
See response from MTC on August 30, 2011
Indicated that they would recognize the urgency in completing the review
N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
28 of 35 appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) were weeks beyond the anticipated service window.
Previous email from MTC to ARA, indicated they would be reviewing Arch Stage two assessments as expediently as possible.
Andrea Williams, A/Archaeology Review Officer
Received letter in email on August 30, 2011 MTC has reviewed the revised Stage 2
Archaeological Assessment report. MTC accepts the revised report into the
Provincial register of archaeological reports. MTC concurs with the recommendation that
the provincial interest in the archaeological site identified as Location 1 (AkHc-18) has been addressed.
N/A N/A
Andrea Williams, A/Archaeology Review Officer
Email with attached letter
Received letter on August 30, 2011 Provided MTC REA comment letter for the
Springwood Wind Project Stage 2 report Based on the information contained in the
report, the Ministry believes the archaeological assessment complies with the Ontario Heritage Act’s licensing requirements.
The Ministry is satisfied with the recommendations provided in the report.
This letter does not waive any of the requirements under the Ontario Heritage Act and does not constitute approval of the renewable energy project.
It is wpd’s responsibility to obtain any necessary approvals or licences.
N/A N/A
Karla Barboza Katherine Kirzati
Sent Letter on August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting
N/A N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx 29 of 35
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) Letter and Notice
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure Mirrum Zaveri Kevin Pal Allan Jenkins Thomas Nikolakakos,
REFO Letter and Notice
Sent Letter August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Project Provided turbine coordinates
N/A N/A
Mirrum Zaveri Kevin Pal Allan Jenkins Thomas Nikolakakos,
REFO Letter and Notice
Sent email on September 22, 2010 Attached Notice of Public Meeting #1
N/A N/A
Thomas Nokolakakos, REFO
Emails
Received Email on February 7, 2011 MTC has asked that you provide an outline
of the issues you have encountered for each of your projects, as well as the FIT status and COD date for each project. MTC has also recommended that you ask your consultant archaeologist to attend the meeting as well, as the issues may be of a technical nature.
Sent Email February 8, 2011 The following issues/discussion
points are basically the same for all of our projects:
o Timing – getting all permits and approvals complete before submission of the REA
o wpd would like to discuss making a Stage 2 a condition of REA vs. a requirement for application of a REA
Meetings were held with REFO and MTC to clarify some of these concerns
Discussions tied to updating reports for REA submission
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
30 of 35 appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure o Attached timeline of
projects o Need for a Stage 2
when Stage 1 identifies only a low potential of archaeological significance
o Latitude on plowing no-till lands
Mirrum Zaveri Kevin Pal Allan Jenkins Thomas Nikolakakos,
REFO Letter and Notice
Sent Letter on August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting
N/A N/A
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry Joan Van Kralingen, Glenn Seim Letter and Notice
Sent Letter August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Project Provided turbine coordinates
N/A N/A
Debbie Laidlaw, Regional Land Use Geologist (Acting)
Received Email September 3, 2010 Please amend the distribution list to include
my name in the place of Glenn Seim
N/A Updated contact list
Joan Van Kralingen, Debbie Laidlaw Letter and Notice
Sent letter on September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1
N/A N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx 31 of 35
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry Joan Van Kralingen, Debbie Laidlaw Letter and Notice
Sent email August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting
N/A N/A
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Hydro One Networks Inc. HONI –
Correspondence Correspondence dated June 10, 2010 HONI confirmed receipt of complete CIA
Application submission
N/A
Distribution Generation Support, Business Customer Centre
Received email August 12, 2010 HONI forwarded completed CIA
N/A
Leslie Koch, Hydro One Letter and Notice
Sent Letter August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Project Provided turbine coordinates
N/A N/A
Gregory Gabriel, Distribution Generation Analyst, BCC DX Generation Connection
Received email August 30, 2010 HONI noted conflicting information, and
suggested revision to CIA.
N/A Revised CIA and re-submitted.
Leslie Koch, Hydro One Networks Inc.
Letter and Notice
Sent letter September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1
N/A N/A
Jen Long, Transmission Lines Sustainment, Hydro One Networks Inc.
Received Email on October 21, 2010. HONI can confirm that there are no Hydro
One Transmission Facilities in the subject area.
N/A N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
32 of 35 appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Hydro One Networks Inc. Please be advised, this is only a preliminary
assessment based on current information. No further consultation with HONI is required if no changes are made to the current information.
Distribution Generation Support, Business Customer Centre, HONI
Received email February 26, 2011 HONI completed and forwarded new CIA.
Accepted HONI decision. Project or study design altered:
Documents amended:
Additional information provided:
Darryl Tackaberry, DX Account Executive, Hydro One
Phone Call
Phone call made on February 26, 2011 Discussion about the new CIA, specifically
the fact that HONI will be taking on ownership of the line right up to our switching station
N/A See above
Darryl Tackaberry, DX Account Executive, Customer Care
Letter from HONI to Jeremy Pasma, Ontario Power Authority
Email with attached letter
Received email with attached letter on May 3, 2011
Re: Proposed change in connecting feeder Bellwood Wind Farm – Fergus TS, ID #12,820
Please consider this formal notification that through completion of a revised Connection Impact Assessment (CIA), Hydro One proposes that the subject project’s connecting feeder be moved from the Fergus TS M2 to the Fergus TS M6.
N/A N/A
Justin Thomas, Distribution Generation Connections Consultant, Customer Care
Received email June 6, 2011 HONI provided wpd with executed CCA,
and confirmed receipt of payment
N/A N/A
Satish Saini, Anthony Manna, Clara Joseph, Doreen Stermann,
Meeting on July 14, 2011, continued on August 2, 2011 (see below)
Assessed potential scheduling in content of potential construction dates.
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx 33 of 35
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Hydro One Networks Inc. Darryl Tackaberry, HONI
Paul Deol, wpd HONI and wpd Canada
Introductory meeting
Introductory meeting to discuss scheduling.
Satish Saini, Anthony Manna, Clara Joseph, Doreen Stermann, Darryl Tackaberry, HONI
Paul Deol, wpd HONI and wpd Canada
kick-off meeting
Kick-off meeting held on August 2, 2011 Follow up meeting to discuss line
expansion, infrastructure design, and in-service date.
Agreed to in-service date.
Leslie Koch, Hydro One Networks Inc.
Letter and Notice
Sent letter August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting
N/A N/A
Satish Saini, Clara Joseph, Darryl Tackaberry, John Findlay, HONI
Johnathan Clifford, wpd HONI and wpd Canada Meeting
Meeting held on October 27, 2011 Meeting to discuss connection point
location.
N/A N/A
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ontario Heritage Trust Beth Hanna Sean Fraser Letter and Notice
Sent Letter August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Project Provided turbine coordinates
N/A N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
34 of 35 appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Ontario Heritage Trust Beth Hanna Sean Fraser Letter and Notice
Sent Letter on September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1
N/A N/A
Sean Fraser, Manager, Acquisitions and Conservation Services
Letter
Received letter dated September 29, 2010 We do not have any properties within your
study area; however, we do recommend you contact the Ministry of Culture and local municipal agencies for further information
N/A We have contacted local authorities and will use any information in reports.
Beth Hanna Sean Fraser Letter and Notice
Sent email August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting
N/A N/A
Sean Fraser, Manager, Acquisitions and Conservation Services
Letter
Received letter dated October 12, 2011, received by email on October 14, 2011
The study area site map has been reviewed, and it is advised that, as per O. Reg. 359/09, s. 19 the Trust does not protect any property through a conservation easement on lands that will be directly impacted or visually affected by this renewal energy undertaking
The trust encourage you to contact the MTC, if you have not already done so, to confirm if there are any other cultural heritage interests noted in s. 19 which may be affected by this project.
N/A N/A
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Grand River Conservation Authority Nancy Davy Letter and Notice
Sent Letter August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Project
N/A N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary
appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx 35 of 35
Details of Correspondence
Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Grand River Conservation Authority Provided turbine coordinates
Nancy Davy Letter and Notice
Sent letter September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1
N/A N/A
Sent to Nancy Davy Received from Fred
Natolochny, Supervisor of Resource Planning
Emails
Email sent on September 30, 2010 Provided Project information Noted that Stantec has initiated a records
review to identify natural features within the vicinity of the project.
Formally requested any relevant data (preferably in digital and/or shape file format) available for the Study Area, related to waters supporting Species at Risk, fish and fish habitat including stream classifications (thermal regimes), known groundwater seepage areas, other water bodies, hazard lands, local wetlands or other environmentally sensitive or significant areas, any other information regarding aquatic or terrestrial habitats or wildlife in the Study Area.
Noted that MNR has also been contacted.
Received email September 30, 2010
GRCA noted the Planner dealing with the area containing the inquiry.
Provided a link to their website where the data is available and where GIS can be accessed directly.
N/A
Nancy Davy Letter and Notice
Sent letter August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting
N/A N/A
Jamie Ferguson, Resource Planner
Received Email September 19, 2011 Would we be able to get a hard copy of the
Natural Heritage Assessment and EIS for this project?
N/A Project or study design altered: Documents amended: Additional information provided:
Hardcopies were sent out in late
September 2011.
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT RENEWABLE ENERGY APPROVAL REPORTS January 2012
160960606
Appendix F4
Municipalities Comment/Response Summary
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECTCONSULTATION REPORTAppendix F-4 - Municipal Correspondence
Stantec Project Number: 160960606 1 of 11
Date Sent Date Replied Correspondence Type Recipient/Attendees Document Summary Response/Discussion Summary Required Action/ Suggestions
12-Aug-10 N/A Canada Post
Gary Cousins, Donna Bryce, Deborah Turchet,
County of Wellington. Brett Salmon, Marion Morris Township of Township of Centre
Wellington
Mailed Notice of Proposal to Engage in Project, with turbine coordinates provided N/A N/A
13-Aug-10 N/A Email
Gary Cousins, Donna Bryce, Deborah Turchet,
County of Wellington. Brett Salmon, Marion Morris Township of Township of Centre
Wellington
Emailed Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Project
Received thanks and comment back (Aug 17, 2010) from Mark Paoli from the County of Wellington, Asked that the County please be kept informed with all actions and available documents as the project proceeds.
N/A
17-Aug-10 N/A EmailMark Paoli, Senior Policy
Planner, County of Wellington
The County has an interest in both the process and outcomes of this proposalPlease advise the County of all actions and available documents as the project proceeds by forwarding information to the County Clerk
N/AThe County Clerk was sent notices and letters throughout the process, to keep the County informed of the Project
22-Sep-10 N/A Canada Post and EmailMarion Morris, Brett
Salmon, Township of Centre Wellington
Emailed letter of Notice of Public Meeting in preparation for first Open House and a copy of the actual notice
N/A N/A
22-Sep-10 N/A Email
Gary Cousins, Donna Bryce, Deborah Turchet,
Roads Division, County of Wellington
Emailed letter of Notice of Public Meeting in preparation for first Open House and a copy of the actual notice
N/A N/A
26-Sep-10 EmailEmma Reddish,
Wellington County Email correspondence between Stantec and Wellington County.
Stantec has asked how to obtain municipal tax and mailing informationWellington County confirmed that she was unable to sendout information unless they were working on behalf of the local municipality. If roll numbers and tax information are needed, someone will have to physically visit the municipal office and copy the information directly.
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORTAppendix F-4 - Municipal Correspondence
2 of 11 Stantec Project Number: 160960606
Date Sent Date Replied Correspondence Type Recipient/Attendees Document Summary Response/Discussion Summary Required Action/ Suggestions
12-Oct-10 Email Sonia Giberson, Wellington County
Please note that an entrance permit into the site may/will be requiredPlease contact the Technical Services Supervisor for information regarding entrance permitsThe moving of the 4 turbines, if travelling on Wellington County roads will require an oversize permitIn order to process the application, a copy of the MTO single trip/annual permit regarding the moves, Insurance Certificate naming the County of Wellington as an additional insured and appropriate payment is also required
Wellington County will forward a permit application under a separate email.
14-Mar-2011 17-Mar-2011 Email
Sent to: Mayor Joanne Ross-Zuj,
Received from: Michael Wood, CAO,
Township of Centre Wellington
Introductory email sent to Mayor regarding the Project.Noted that wpd is currently planning the municipal consultation and intends to reach out to the municipality in the coming weeks.Please contact should you have any questions or concerns
Reply back from CAO that the Mayor's office would like to meet with wpd at a later date. They would contact us when they were available.
14-Mar-2011 EmailWalt Visser, Councillor
Township of Centre Wellington
Introductory email sent to Councillor representing project area, explaining municipal consultationNoted that wpd is currently planning the municipal consultation and intends to reach out to the municipality in the coming weeks.Please contact should you have any questions or concerns
N/A
19-May-2011 Email
Joanne Ross-Zuj, MayorKelly Linton, Mary Lloyd,
Kirk McElwain, Fred Morris, Steven
VanLeeuwen, Walt Visser,Councillors
Township of Centre Wellington
Email sent to Township of Centre Wellington Mayor and Councillors of recent wind research and news articles.
wpd has on a regular basis sent out emails with links to updated wind related articles in the news from around the world to a list of those expressing interest in the project and municipal officials.
23-May-2011 24-May-2011 Email Kelly Linton Email from Councillor Kelly Linton, Ward 1
expressing support for renewable energy projects
Thanked her for her supportAdded her to our email list that wpd uses to send out periodic updates on the wind industry.Provided her with new articles of interest
Wpd added Councillor to the email list to update her on the wind industry
13-Jun-2011 N/A Email
Brett Salmon, Director of Planning and Mr. Wood,
Township of Centre Wellington
Letting them know engineers will be onsite conducting geotechnical work within the next two weeks
14-Jun-2011 N/A Email
Steven VanLeeuwen, Kelly Linton, Fred Morris, Joanne Ross-Zuj, Walt Visser, Kirk McElwain,
Mary LloydTownship of Centre
Wellington
Email sent of wind related articles for May 29th to June 12th.
wpd has on a regular basis sent out emails with links to updated wind related articles in the news from around the world to a list of those expressing interest in the Project and municipal officials.
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECTCONSULTATION REPORTAppendix F-4 - Municipal Correspondence
Stantec Project Number: 160960606 3 of 11
Date Sent Date Replied Correspondence Type Recipient/Attendees Document Summary Response/Discussion Summary Required Action/ Suggestions
27-Jun-2011 N/A Canada PostMarion Morris at the Township of Centre
Wellington
Introductory Letter was attached with Municipal Consultation form.Noted that the Draft Project Description Report was previously sent and is available on the Project website and draft copies of the other reports will be sent shortlyMunicipal Consultation Form sent to Centre Wellington Clerk’s Department, requesting municipal feedback related to municipal services and infrastructure, rehabilitation of areas disturbed and/or infrastructure damaged during construction, and emergency management procedures/safety protocols.Noted that wpd would be contacting in the near future to set up a meeting of mutual convenience
N/A
27-Jun-2011 N/A Canada Post Donna Bryce, Wellington County
Introductory Letter was attached with Municipal Consultation form.Noted that the Draft Project Description Report was previously sent and is available on the Project website and draft copies of the other reports will be sent shortlyMunicipal Consultation Form sent to Wellington County Clerk’s Department, requesting municipal feedback related to municipal services and infrastructure, rehabilitation of areas disturbed and/or infrastructure damaged during construction, and emergency management procedures/safety protocols.Noted that wpd would be contacting in the near future to set up a meeting of mutual convenience
N/A
29-Jun-2011 5-Jul-2011 Canada PostEmail
Sent to: Marion MorrisResponse from: Chantalle
Pellizzari Township of Centre Wellington
Full 90 day municipal consultation package sent with letter from Stantec, Enclosed was a Municipal Consultation Form for the Project and the Draft Project reports
Email confirming receipt of the Municipal Consultation package. Asked if they could receive draft reports on CD. See below, Item #16 for details on this request
29-Jun-2011 N/A Canada Post Donna Bryce, WellingtonCounty
Full 90 day municipal consultation package sent with letter from StantecEnclosed was a Municipal Consultation Form for the Project and the Draft Project reports
N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORTAppendix F-4 - Municipal Correspondence
4 of 11 Stantec Project Number: 160960606
Date Sent Date Replied Correspondence Type Recipient/Attendees Document Summary Response/Discussion Summary Required Action/ Suggestions
5-Jul-2010 15-Jul-10 Email Brett Salmon, Centre Wellington
Email reply back in regards to the email sent July 5th.Stantec asked how many CDs with the municipal report information the municipality required, and to confirm if the CDs will be for the municipality’s internal use.Stantec responded that the information is considered public as it has been sent to the municipality. However, the documents were considered drafts in order to facilitate municipal consultation and were not necessarily intended to be handed out to the public. Confirmed that these reports will be made available to the public at least 60 days prior to the last open house.
He replied that they required 4 copies to facilitate staff review and inquired whether or not the CD is considered public documentationHe replied back on July 15, 2011 thanking Stantec for the CDs and explained that a member of the community had requested a copy of the report and based off wpd's comment was unsure how to proceed. Presumed that if someone needs a copy that it should be sent directly from wpd.wpd responded by offering to post the information on the wpd website. It was accepted by him, and the information was posted. He also asked what timeline wpd expected the municipal consultation form to be returned as there was no listed deadline date.wpd responded that there isn't a regulated time of response, but the earlier the responses, the quicker wpd can address concern. Asked that responses be sent the CAO as he will be out of the office.
22-Jul-2011 N/A Call Marion Morris, Township of Centre Wellington
Call to Marion about setting up a municipal consultation meeting with Township of Centre Wellington , County of Wellington and wpd
She indicated that the main contact for municipal consultation was on
26-Jul-2011 N/A Call Donna Bryce Wellington County
Call to Donna Bryce about setting up a municipal consultation meeting with Township of Centre Wellington , County of Wellington and wpd
She indicated that she would like to speak with the director of planning and then get back to wpd
2-Aug-2011 Email Brett Salmon, Township of Centre Wellington
Email from wpd confirming the time for a scheduled meeting.wpd suggested that the week of Aug15-19 works the best.Requested that the Township identify dates that work best for them
A meeting was eventually booked for Aug 17, 2011
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECTCONSULTATION REPORTAppendix F-4 - Municipal Correspondence
Stantec Project Number: 160960606 5 of 11
Date Sent Date Replied Correspondence Type Recipient/Attendees Document Summary Response/Discussion Summary Required Action/ Suggestions
17-Aug-11 N/A Meeting in Centre Wellington
Township of Centre Wellington Mayor
Joanne Ross-Zuj, CAO Michael K. Wood, Director of Planning Brett Salmon
Wellington County: Operations and
engineering: Paul Johnston, Mark PaoliStantec Consulting:
Shawna Peddlewpd: Ian McRae, Paul
Deol, Khlaire Parré, Valerie Kitchell
Meeting to discuss the Springwood Wind ProjectThe meeting provided an introduction of wpd Canada, the team, FIT contract process and the Springwood Project. As part of the presentation wpd; reviewed noise and setback regulations, and presented a turbine siting exercise in Ontario under O.Reg.359/09 including information on sound receptors, environmental feature setbacks and minimum distances from lot lines and dwellings.
There were many topics and issues discussed between Municipal officials and wpd some of the questions asked by attendees:- Question about the calculation of noise power levels- Setbacks from environmental features- Format of Public Meetings and public consultation- Timelines regarding municipal consultation- Key contacts at both the municipal level and at wpd for
each item on the municipal consultation form- Layout changes that have taken place over the
planning of the Springwood Project- What is involved in a switching station vs. a substation- Placement of construction – underground, overhead,
etc.- Changes made to the Project due to public feedback- Endangered species and protected habitats- Stantec’s clarification that the developer is bound to the
commitments made in the Construction Plan Report, the Design and Operations Report and the Decommissioning Report
- Conditions surrounding a local property severance- Involvement of council in the municipal consultation
form approval.- Rationale behind certain aspect of the REA process- Protocols regarding information dissemination- Potential necessary permits and assessments- Transparency, and public access to municipal reports- Future meetings with municipal council and staff
Follow up items that were discussed at the end ofthe meeting and actions taken:- Dissemination of Municipal Report to the
Public. Provided online as per the request from the municipality. See item 21and 22 for details
- wpd was extend an invitation to show the siting exercise to the municipal councillors. wpd could not make the dates provided, but the public meeting was within a few weeks of the invitation, so wpd offered to show the siting exercise to the Councillors and to the public at the Open House. The presentation was displayed on a recurring basis throughout the meeting and the engineers were available to answer questions.
- Q: Follow up regarding the ability for municipality to add conditions to the REA. A: The Municipality can provide any of these comments into their consultation form or directly to the Ministry.
- Circulate minutes and contact list for key municipal consultation form items. Minutes were sent by wpd.
- Provide Aboriginal Report Summaries to municipality (wpd) (sent 60 days before final Open House)
- Determine process and timeline for completing the Municipal consultation form (Township of Centre Wellington / Wellington County, w/wpd)
-
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORTAppendix F-4 - Municipal Correspondence
6 of 11 Stantec Project Number: 160960606
Date Sent Date Replied Correspondence Type Recipient/Attendees Document Summary Response/Discussion Summary Required Action/ Suggestions
19-Aug-11 25-Aug-11 EmailBrett Salmon, Director of Planning, Township of
Centre Wellington
Follow up email after the Aug 17, 2011 meeting Thanked him for the meeting and informed him the meeting minutes will be forwarded shortlyEmail also addressed previous discussions between wpd Canada and municipal staff about the release of information sent to the Municipality to the publicIt was explained that the presumed 30 days period between the 90 days before final open house when the municipality was given the reports and 60 day release of all required reporting to the public was to give the municipality enough time to review the information and provide information to the public when needed. wpd suggested that the municipality use the grace period and that wpd would send copies of the reports to members of the public on request 60 days prior to the open house. However, wpd also offered to post the reports on the website if that was the municipalities’ preference.
He replied back on behalf of the Centre Wellington and asked that wpd post the reports on the Project website as soon as possible.
wpd let him know that the documents will be posted on the Project website, and the Township of Centre Wellington will be notified when they are up.
30-Aug-11 N/A EmailBrett Salmon, Director of Planning, Township of
Centre Wellington
Email from wpd with attached meeting minutes from the 17 August 2011, meeting between wpd Canada, Centre Wellington and County of WellingtonRequested to be notified if the Township would like to make any changesAlso confirmed that in response to the request from Centre Wellington, wpd will have the Municipal Reports (Construction, Design and Operations, Decommissioning) posted on the Project website asap.
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECTCONSULTATION REPORTAppendix F-4 - Municipal Correspondence
Stantec Project Number: 160960606 7 of 11
Date Sent Date Replied Correspondence Type Recipient/Attendees Document Summary Response/Discussion Summary Required Action/ Suggestions
31-Aug-2011 N/A Notice of POH2 and Cover Letter
Marion Morris, ClerkTownship of Centre
Wellington
Notice of Final Public Meeting and 60 Day Public Review of REA Documents sent to Public viewing location at the Township of Centre WellingtonNoted the date of the final public meeting as Nov. 4, 2011Requested that the REA documents provided be made available to the public during the 60-day review period within the facility, and that they not allow sign-out of the reportsNoted that the reports are also available on the Project websitePlease do not hesitate to refer the public to wpd and/or Stantec with questions
N/A N/A
31-Aug-11 Notice of POH2
Marion Morris, Brett Salmon, Township of
Centre Wellington
Gary Cousins, Donna Bryce, Deborah Turchet,
Wellington County
Identified the date of the final public meeting as Nov. 4, 2011Noted that the documents are available for the 60-day public review at the Centre Wellington Municipal Offices and on the Project websiteProvided contact information should they have any comments or to request further information
N/A N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORTAppendix F-4 - Municipal Correspondence
8 of 11 Stantec Project Number: 160960606
Date Sent Date Replied Correspondence Type Recipient/Attendees Document Summary Response/Discussion Summary Required Action/ Suggestions
29-Sep-11 28-Oct-11 Canada Post Peter Pickfield, Garrod-Pickfield LLP
Response from the County of Wellington concerning the Municipal consultation package via Garrod-Pickfield Environmental, Municipal, and Planning Law.As indicated in the previous letter sent to the MOE,County of Wellington argues they are unable to provide an adequate response the Municipal consultation forms within the current regulatory environment. The municipality’s main objection to the application is the loss of land use planning by the local government and reduced potential to be able to appeal under the Green Energy Act. Other issues they have concerns with:Health Risks, Land use conflict that would otherwise be addressed under the Planning Act,long range planning issues, impacts on local natural heritage and natural resources that the municipality is unable to address, lack of municipal appeal rights,In general they object to the fact that there is no tribunal mechanism that the municipality can address fundamental concerns with the developer through.County of Wellington reiterated that their suggestions should not be interpreted as approval of the projectCounty of Wellington also reiterated that their submission of suggestions was not to beinterpreted as the municipality forgoing its right to appeal under section 142 of the Environmental Protection act. The following comments were made:A transport permit will be needed for large transport loadsA traffic plan report should be developed in conjunction with the county and municipality prior to REA submission. A road assessment should be conducted to assess the adequacy of unpaved roads. They stated that the REA application should include a traffic report. The county would also like to establish preferred haul routes with wpd before the submission is granted.They noted several wording comments in reference to turbine delivery.
The County provided the follow suggestions and comments on the report- Stated that there is no need for a permit to
remove hedge rows as originally stated in the Construction plan report Section 3.3.4
- Indicated that Centre wellington public works department is to be contacted for drainage issues.
- Clarified as to when road agreements will be completed with both levels of municipalities.
- Asked for more information on the projects effects on aerodromes in the area.
- Asked for more information about mitigation techniques on visual impacts and the layout of the switching station.
- Asked for more detail concerning noise monitoring techniques.
- Asked for clarification concerning the setback requirements for a property the was granted a severance in November 2010.
- They inquired as to how recent changes to O.R. 359/09 affected separation distances tothe Beekdale Holstein property
- asked wpd to confirm that wpd will meet all regulations with regards to sound receptors under O.R. 359/09wpd sent a reply to the letter on October
28, 2011 See below for details (record 25)
29-Sep-11 28-Oct-11 EmailFrom the County of Wellington (via Garrod-Pickfield) to MOE
Email from the offices of Garrod-Pickfield that contained a digital copy of the letter and an attached letter that the County of Wellington sent to the REA manager at Ministry of Environment (MOE).The letter to the MOE contained similar comments mentioned in the letter to wpd as well as the following:Explaining their opposition to all wind projects until further studies have been completed on health. As with their letter to wpd, they feel the municipal consultation form is inadequate in meeting the
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECTCONSULTATION REPORTAppendix F-4 - Municipal Correspondence
Stantec Project Number: 160960606 9 of 11
Date Sent Date Replied Correspondence Type Recipient/Attendees Document Summary Response/Discussion Summary Required Action/ Suggestions
County's concerns and questions.Other concerns objections include: Land-use conflicts, long-range planning, and impacts on heritage and agricultural resources.
28-Oct-11 N/A Canada Post Peter Pickfield, Garrod-Pickfield LLP
Response to the letter received from Garrod-Pickfield on behalf of the County of Wellington dated Sept 29, 2011.Response to each item raised in the Sept 29, 2011 letter:Acknowledged that wpd will obtain the necessary oversize/overweight permits needed to transport items on County roadsAcknowledged the importance of a Traffic Management Plan. However noted that it was not required as part of the REA and that it would be difficult to construct a plan without the feedback from equipment supplies. These supplies will not be secured until REA approval is granted. Reaffirmed that wpd is committed to work with the County and Municipality to eventually develop a traffic plan.Provided reworded and altered statements in response to the municipalities suggestionsregarding the Turbine Delivery section(Construction Plan report 2.6.1)Suggested rewording regarding the transportation of parts and the proposed road routes. Confirmed that the county and municipality will be consulted about any upgrades and/or repairs that may be needed during the course of construction.Reworded the suggested about the woodland and hedge row permit that one will not be needed and is except from Wellington County requirementsReworded Construction Plan report 3.7.1 to say Centre Wellington Public Works will be contactedConfirmed that road agreements will be reached with County Wellington and Township of Centre Wellington once REA approval is reached.Explained that little impact is anticipated on the aerodromes in the area and confirmed that Transport Canada lighting standards will be followed.Confirmed that wpd will follow all provincial requirements with regards to noise requirements. Confirmed that all reasonable commercial efforts will be made to take appropriate action should concerns arise.
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORTAppendix F-4 - Municipal Correspondence
10 of 11 Stantec Project Number: 160960606
Date Sent Date Replied Correspondence Type Recipient/Attendees Document Summary Response/Discussion Summary Required Action/ Suggestions
In regards to the Beekdale Holstein propertyseverance, it was explained that wpd Canada published turbine location on the website and in local papers in August 2010. In pursuant of section 54(1.2), paragraph 4, noise receptors that did not exist on the day before need to be taken into account. As the severance was not granted until November 2010, it was not included in the study.Confirmed that wpd Canada will continue to work with the County and Township to clarify and identify issues pertaining to the Project proposal.
3-Nov-11 2-Dec-11 Canada Post
From the Township of Centre Wellington (via Peter Pickfield, Garrod-Pickfield)
A follow up letter summarizing their opposition to the project. Letter was included with the completed municipal consultation formThey have directed their staff to assess roles and responsibilities of the municipality under the Green Energy Act and in as a result of municipal approval powers being stripped from the Planning Act.Directed staff to review wpd applicationDirected Garrod and Pickfield to prepare the letter setting out their commentsConfirmed that road agreements will be reached with County Wellington and Township of Centre Wellington once REA approval is reached.
The Township Proposes that wpd should provide the following before the director allows the project to proceed: A Fire Safety Plan, a preconstruction road survey, A Traffic management plan, an application for a site alteration permit, and finally an agreement to provide securities for maintenance and decommissioning of the facility.Confirmed that the Township of Centre Wellington Public Works department was the appropriate organization to consult for drainage issues.As with the County, the Township wants clarification concerning the setback requirements for a property was granted a severance inNovember, 2010.They inquired as to how recent changes to O.R. 359/09 affected separation distances to the Beekdale Holstein property and wpd position on the separation distance.Asked wpd to confirm that wpd will meet all regulations with regards to sound receptors under O.R. 359/09 with regards to the Beekdale property.
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECTCONSULTATION REPORTAppendix F-4 - Municipal Correspondence
Stantec Project Number: 160960606 11 of 11
Date Sent Date Replied Correspondence Type Recipient/Attendees Document Summary Response/Discussion Summary Required Action/ Suggestions
2-Dec-11 Canada Post
From wpd to the Township of Centre Wellington, via Garrod-Pickfield
Response to the letter received from Garrod Pickfield on behalf of the Township of Centre Wellington. Confirmed that wpd would follow all regulations with regards to setbacks and noise levels. Indicated the Repower the turbine supplier has guaranteed the maximum sound level power from each turbine.Acknowledged that wpd would work with the municipality to develop a road survey, traffic plan, faire safety plan and work to get all other relevant permitsSuggested amended language concerning the drainage issues in the Construction Plan reportConfirmed that wpd published the layout of their project on August 20, 2010. According to O Reg. 359/09, Section 54(1.2), paragraph 4 noise receptors that did not exist the day before turbine locations are published need not be taken into accountThe severance for Beekdale Farm was approved in November 2010, after the publication date of the turbine layout.wpd confirmed that it would continue to act in accordance with all regulations under REA regulations
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT RENEWABLE ENERGY APPROVAL REPORTS January 2012
160960606
Appendix F5
Elected Officials Comment/Response Summary
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ! " � # $ $ � % & '( � ! ) * ' � + , - . / � / � ' �0 � 1 ) * ' � + , - . / � 2 % + .3 4 5 6 4 7 8 4 9 : : ; : < = <> ? @ 4 A = B < C B < B < BD E F G 6 ? 6 H 4 F I J K L L ? I 4M N : < < 3 6 O P Q 6 9 ? I R 3 6 9 4 4 6 S Q G 6> 4 9 T H G ; K U U = V = V WX Y Y Z [ Y \ ] [ ^ _ \ ` a b Z c d a ] [ ef Z g Z h Z [ ` Z ^ i j h \ [ e k ] ] l m \ [ l n h ] o Z ` Yp ] Y \ ` Z ] g n q r c \ ` _ Z Z Y \ [ eP @ 4 Q G 4 L ? F s Q 6 6 Q I t 4 s 6 t 4 U E 6 ? I 4 E L P H 8 @ ? I V 4 4 6 ? F T L E 9 6 t 4 3 5 9 ? F T u E E s v ? F s P 9 E w 4 I 6 O x G s 4 G I 9 ? 8 4 s ? F 6 t 4F E 6 ? I 4 ; u 5 s D Q F Q s Q D E 9 5 E 9 Q 6 ? E F y u 5 s z ? G 5 9 E 5 E G ? F T 6 E s 4 { 4 @ E 5 6 t 4 3 5 9 ? F T u E E s v ? F s P 9 E w 4 I 6 y P 9 E w 4 I 6 z ? F 6 t 4| E u F G t ? 5 E L D 4 F 6 9 4 v 4 @ @ ? F T 6 E F ; v 4 @ @ ? F T 6 E F D E H F 6 J ; K F 6 Q 9 ? E O} E H 9 Q T 4 F I J E 9 T 9 E H 5 t Q G 8 4 4 F ? F I @ H s 4 s E F 6 t 4 5 9 E w 4 I 6 ~ G I E F G H @ 6 Q 6 ? E F s ? G 6 9 ? 8 H 6 ? E F @ ? G 6 O � L E H 9 I E F 6 Q I 6? F L E 9 7 Q 6 ? E F G t E H @ s 8 4 Q 7 4 F s 4 s ; 5 @ 4 Q G 4 I E F 6 Q I 6 6 t 4 H F s 4 9 G ? T F 4 s Q 6 J E H 9 4 Q 9 @ ? 4 G 6 I E F { 4 F ? 4 F I 4 Ov 4 t E 5 4 6 t Q 6 J E H I Q F Q 6 6 4 F s 6 t 4 P H 8 @ ? I V 4 4 6 ? F T O x @ 6 4 9 F Q 6 ? { 4 @ J ; 6 E 5 9 E { ? s 4 6 t 4 P 9 E w 4 I 6 6 4 Q 7 u ? 6 t J E H 9I E 7 7 4 F 6 G E 9 L E 9 L H 9 6 t 4 9 ? F L E 9 7 Q 6 ? E F Q 8 E H 6 6 t 4 P 9 E w 4 I 6 ; 5 @ 4 Q G 4 4 7 Q ? @ H G Q 6 3 t Q u F Q O 5 4 s s @ 4 � G 6 Q F 6 4 I O I E 7 E 9I Q @ @ 3 6 Q F 6 4 I Q 6 y M = C z � � B N B < M < O v 9 ? 6 6 4 F I E 7 7 4 F 6 G I Q F Q @ G E 8 4 7 Q ? @ 4 s E 9 L Q � 4 s 6 E 6 t 4 H F s 4 9 G ? T F 4 s O> E 9 7 E 9 4 ? F L E 9 7 Q 6 ? E F 5 @ 4 Q G 4 { ? G ? 6 6 t 4 5 9 E w 4 I 6 u 4 8 G ? 6 4 A t 6 6 5 A � � I Q F Q s Q O u 5 s O s 4 � I Q � 5 9 E w 4 I 6 G � ? F NI Q F Q s Q � G 5 9 ? F T u E E s O t 6 7 @3 ? F I 4 9 4 @ J ;i � X p � � d d � p i � � � � p � � � � �3 t Q u F Q P 4 s s @ 43 4 F ? E 9 P 9 E w 4 I 6 V Q F Q T 4 9� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �¡ ¢ � £ ¤ � ¥ ¦ � § § � � ¨ © ª � ¤ ª � « ¥ « ¬ S F I @ E G H 9 4 A ® ¬ ª ¯ « � ¬ ° ± ² ³ � ¯ « ´ � � ª ¯ ¤ µD D O ¶ t @ Q ? 9 4 P Q 9 9 · ; u 5 s D Q F Q s Q D E 9 5 E 9 Q 6 ? E F
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ! " � # $ $ � % & '( � ! ) * ' � + , - . / � / � ' �0 � 1 ) * ' � + , - . / � 2 % + .3 4 5 6 4 7 8 4 9 : : ; : < = <> ? @ 4 A = B < C B < B < BD E F G 6 ? 6 H 4 F I J K L L ? I 4= � = 3 6 O x F s 9 4 u 3 6 9 4 4 6 S Q G 6 ; : F s > @ E E 9> 4 9 T H G ; K U U = V = P CX Y Y Z [ Y \ ] [ ^ � Z l X h [ ] Y Yf Z g Z h Z [ ` Z ^ i j h \ [ e k ] ] l m \ [ l n h ] o Z ` Yp ] Y \ ` Z ] g n q r c \ ` _ Z Z Y \ [ eP @ 4 Q G 4 L ? F s Q 6 6 Q I t 4 s 6 t 4 U E 6 ? I 4 E L P H 8 @ ? I V 4 4 6 ? F T L E 9 6 t 4 3 5 9 ? F T u E E s v ? F s P 9 E w 4 I 6 O x G s 4 G I 9 ? 8 4 s ? F 6 t 4F E 6 ? I 4 ; u 5 s D Q F Q s Q D E 9 5 E 9 Q 6 ? E F y u 5 s z ? G 5 9 E 5 E G ? F T 6 E s 4 { 4 @ E 5 6 t 4 3 5 9 ? F T u E E s v ? F s P 9 E w 4 I 6 y P 9 E w 4 I 6 z ? F 6 t 4| E u F G t ? 5 E L D 4 F 6 9 4 v 4 @ @ ? F T 6 E F ; v 4 @ @ ? F T 6 E F D E H F 6 J ; K F 6 Q 9 ? E O} E H 9 Q T 4 F I J E 9 T 9 E H 5 t Q G 8 4 4 F ? F I @ H s 4 s E F 6 t 4 5 9 E w 4 I 6 ~ G I E F G H @ 6 Q 6 ? E F s ? G 6 9 ? 8 H 6 ? E F @ ? G 6 O � L E H 9 I E F 6 Q I 6? F L E 9 7 Q 6 ? E F G t E H @ s 8 4 Q 7 4 F s 4 s ; 5 @ 4 Q G 4 I E F 6 Q I 6 6 t 4 H F s 4 9 G ? T F 4 s Q 6 J E H 9 4 Q 9 @ ? 4 G 6 I E F { 4 F ? 4 F I 4 Ov 4 t E 5 4 6 t Q 6 J E H I Q F Q 6 6 4 F s 6 t 4 P H 8 @ ? I V 4 4 6 ? F T O x @ 6 4 9 F Q 6 ? { 4 @ J ; 6 E 5 9 E { ? s 4 6 t 4 P 9 E w 4 I 6 6 4 Q 7 u ? 6 t J E H 9I E 7 7 4 F 6 G E 9 L E 9 L H 9 6 t 4 9 ? F L E 9 7 Q 6 ? E F Q 8 E H 6 6 t 4 P 9 E w 4 I 6 ; 5 @ 4 Q G 4 4 7 Q ? @ H G Q 6 3 t Q u F Q O 5 4 s s @ 4 � G 6 Q F 6 4 I O I E 7 E 9I Q @ @ 3 6 Q F 6 4 I Q 6 y M = C z � � B N B < M < O v 9 ? 6 6 4 F I E 7 7 4 F 6 G I Q F Q @ G E 8 4 7 Q ? @ 4 s E 9 L Q � 4 s 6 E 6 t 4 H F s 4 9 G ? T F 4 s O> E 9 7 E 9 4 ? F L E 9 7 Q 6 ? E F 5 @ 4 Q G 4 { ? G ? 6 6 t 4 5 9 E w 4 I 6 u 4 8 G ? 6 4 A t 6 6 5 A � � I Q F Q s Q O u 5 s O s 4 � I Q � 5 9 E w 4 I 6 G � ? F NI Q F Q s Q � G 5 9 ? F T u E E s O t 6 7 @3 ? F I 4 9 4 @ J ;i � X p � � d d � p i � � � � p � � � � �3 t Q u F Q P 4 s s @ 43 4 F ? E 9 P 9 E w 4 I 6 V Q F Q T 4 9� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �¡ ¢ � £ ¤ � ¥ ¦ � § § � � ¨ © ª � ¤ ª � « ¥ « ¬ S F I @ E G H 9 4 A ® ¬ ª ¯ « � ¬ ° ± ² ³ � ¯ « ´ � � ª ¯ ¤ µD D O ¶ t @ Q ? 9 4 P Q 9 9 · ; u 5 s D Q F Q s Q D E 9 5 E 9 Q 6 ? E F
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ! " � # $ $ � % & '( � ! ) * ' � + , - . / � / � ' �0 � 1 ) * ' � + , - . / � 2 % + .3 4 5 4 6 7 8 9 : ; < 9 9= > ? @ A 9 B < C B < B < BD E F 6 7 > 7 4 @ F G H I J J > G @K L ; < < M 7 N O P 7 Q > G R M 7 Q @ @ 7 S P 6 7= @ Q 5 4 6 I T T 9 U 9 U VW X X Y Z X [ \ Z ] ^ [ _ ` a Y b c ` \ Z de Y f Y g Y Z _ Y ] h i g [ Z d j \ \ k l [ Z k m g \ n Y _ Xo \ X [ _ Y \ f p [ Z a b m q r b [ _ ^ Y Y X [ Z dO ? @ P 6 @ J > F s P 7 7 P G t @ s 7 t @ T E 7 > G @ E J = > F P ? O 4 u ? > G U @ @ 7 > F 5 J E Q 7 t @ M v Q > F 5 w E E s x > F s O Q E y @ G 7 N 3 6 s @ 6 G Q > u @ s > F 7 t @F E 7 > G @ : w v s D P F P s P D E Q v E Q P 7 > E F z w v s D P F P s P { > 6 v Q E v E 6 > F 5 7 E s @ | @ ? E v 7 t @ M v Q > F 5 w E E s x > F s O Q E y @ G 7z O Q E y @ G 7 { > F 7 t @ } E w F 6 t > v E J D @ F 7 Q @ x @ ? ? > F 5 7 E F : x @ ? ? > F 5 7 E F D E 4 F 7 H : I F 7 P Q > E N~ F s @ Q I F 7 P Q > E � @ 5 4 ? P 7 > E F 8 K C � < C : s Q P J 7 6 E J P ? ? Q @ v E Q 7 6 Q @ � 4 > Q @ s P 6 v P Q 7 E J 7 t @ � @ F @ w P u ? @ S F @ Q 5 H 3 v v Q E | P ?P v v ? > G P 7 > E F J E Q 7 t @ O Q E y @ G 7 P Q @ 7 E u @ � P s @ P | P > ? P u ? @ J E Q v 4 u ? > G Q @ | > @ w P F s G E � � @ F 7 J E Q P v @ Q > E s E J P 7 ? @ P 6 7 B < Ls P H 6 v Q > E Q 7 E 7 t @ = > F P ? O 4 u ? > G U @ @ 7 > F 5 N } t @ = > F P ? O 4 u ? > G U @ @ 7 > F 5 J E Q 7 t @ O Q E y @ G 7 > 6 7 E u @ t @ ? s E F T E | @ � u @ Q V � � :; < 9 9 N } t @ s E G 4 � @ F 7 6 P Q @ P | P > ? P u ? @ J E Q H E 4 Q Q @ | > @ w P 7 7 t @ D @ F 7 Q @ x @ ? ? > F 5 7 E F U 4 F > G > v P ? I J J > G @ 6 : 9 U P G � E F P ? sM � 4 P Q @ : S ? E Q P N } t @ Q @ v E Q 7 6 P Q @ P ? 6 E P | P > ? P u ? @ P 7 7 t @ O Q E y @ G 7 w @ u 6 > 7 @
–5 E 7 E w w w N w v s L G P F P s P N G P : 4 F s @ Q� � � � � � � � : 7 t @ F � � � � � � � � : H E 4 w > ? ? J > F s 7 t @ � � � � � � � � � � ? > F R E F 7 t @ ? @ J 7 N I Q 4 6 @ 7 t @ s > Q @ G 7 ? > F R At 7 7 v A � � G P F P s P N w v s N s @ � G P � v Q E y @ G 7 6 � > F L G P F P s P � 6 v Q > F 5 w E E s N t 7 � ? Nx @ t E v @ 7 t P 7 H E 4 G P F P 7 7 @ F s 7 t @ O 4 u ? > G U @ @ 7 > F 5 N } t @ 7 > � @ P F s ? E G P 7 > E F E J 7 t @ � @ @ 7 > F 5 G P F u @ J E 4 F s E F 7 t @P 7 7 P G t @ s F E 7 > G @ N 3 ? 7 @ Q F P 7 > | @ ? H : 7 E v Q E | > s @ 7 t @ O Q E y @ G 7 7 @ P � w > 7 t H E 4 Q G E � � @ F 7 6 E Q J E Q J 4 Q 7 t @ Q > F J E Q � P 7 > E F :v ? @ P 6 @ @ � P > ? 4 6 P 7 M t P w F P N v @ s s ? @ � 6 7 P F 7 @ G N G E � E Q G P ? ? M 7 P F 7 @ G P 7 z K 9 C { � 8 B L B < K < N x Q > 7 7 @ F G E � � @ F 7 6 G P FP ? 6 E u @ � P > ? @ s E Q J P � @ s 7 E 7 t @ 4 F s @ Q 6 > 5 F @ s N= E Q � E Q @ > F J E Q � P 7 > E F : v ? @ P 6 @ | > 6 > 7 7 t @ O Q E y @ G 7 w @ u 6 > 7 @ : E Q G E F 7 P G 7 4 6 P 7 P F H 7 > � @ NM > F G @ Q @ ? H :h � W o � � c c � o h � � � � o � � ¡ ¢h ` a j Z a m Y k k b YM @ F > E Q O Q E y @ G 7 U P F P 5 @ Q£ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ª « ¬ ® ¯ ® ° ¨ °± ² ³ ¦ § ¨ © ª « ¬ ® ¯ ´ µ ª ¶ · ² ¸ ¹ ² º » ¤ ¼ ¼ ¥ ¤ ½ ¾ ¿ ² ¹ ¿ ¤ À º À Á ÂS F G ? E 6 4 Q @ A Ã Á ¿ Ä À ¤ Á Å ± Ä ¹ ² ¥ Æ Ç È ¥ Ä À É ¤ ¤ ¿ Ä ¹ ÊD D N Ë t ? P > Q @ O P Q Q Ì : w v s D P F P s P D E Q v E Q P 7 > E F
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ! " � # $ $ � % & '( � ! ) * ' � + , - . / � / � ' �0 � 1 ) * ' � + , - . / � 2 % + .3 4 5 4 6 7 8 9 : ; < 9 9= > ? @ A 9 B < C B < B < BD E F 6 7 > 7 4 @ F G H I J J > G @9 � 9 M 7 N 3 F s Q @ w M 7 Q @ @ 7 S P 6 7 : ; F s = ? E E Q= @ Q 5 4 6 I T T 9 U 9 O CW X X Y Z X [ \ Z ] � Y k W g Z \ X Xe Y f Y g Y Z _ Y ] h i g [ Z d j \ \ k l [ Z k m g \ n Y _ Xo \ X [ _ Y \ f p [ Z a b m q r b [ _ ^ Y Y X [ Z dO ? @ P 6 @ J > F s P 7 7 P G t @ s 7 t @ T E 7 > G @ E J = > F P ? O 4 u ? > G U @ @ 7 > F 5 J E Q 7 t @ M v Q > F 5 w E E s x > F s O Q E y @ G 7 N 3 6 s @ 6 G Q > u @ s > F 7 t @F E 7 > G @ : w v s D P F P s P D E Q v E Q P 7 > E F z w v s D P F P s P { > 6 v Q E v E 6 > F 5 7 E s @ | @ ? E v 7 t @ M v Q > F 5 w E E s x > F s O Q E y @ G 7z O Q E y @ G 7 { > F 7 t @ } E w F 6 t > v E J D @ F 7 Q @ x @ ? ? > F 5 7 E F : x @ ? ? > F 5 7 E F D E 4 F 7 H : I F 7 P Q > E N~ F s @ Q I F 7 P Q > E � @ 5 4 ? P 7 > E F 8 K C � < C : s Q P J 7 6 E J P ? ? Q @ v E Q 7 6 Q @ � 4 > Q @ s P 6 v P Q 7 E J 7 t @ � @ F @ w P u ? @ S F @ Q 5 H 3 v v Q E | P ?P v v ? > G P 7 > E F J E Q 7 t @ O Q E y @ G 7 P Q @ 7 E u @ � P s @ P | P > ? P u ? @ J E Q v 4 u ? > G Q @ | > @ w P F s G E � � @ F 7 J E Q P v @ Q > E s E J P 7 ? @ P 6 7 B < Ls P H 6 v Q > E Q 7 E 7 t @ = > F P ? O 4 u ? > G U @ @ 7 > F 5 N } t @ = > F P ? O 4 u ? > G U @ @ 7 > F 5 J E Q 7 t @ O Q E y @ G 7 > 6 7 E u @ t @ ? s E F T E | @ � u @ Q V � � :; < 9 9 N } t @ s E G 4 � @ F 7 6 P Q @ P | P > ? P u ? @ J E Q H E 4 Q Q @ | > @ w P 7 7 t @ D @ F 7 Q @ x @ ? ? > F 5 7 E F U 4 F > G > v P ? I J J > G @ 6 : 9 U P G � E F P ? sM � 4 P Q @ : S ? E Q P N } t @ Q @ v E Q 7 6 P Q @ P ? 6 E P | P > ? P u ? @ P 7 7 t @ O Q E y @ G 7 w @ u 6 > 7 @
–5 E 7 E w w w N w v s L G P F P s P N G P : 4 F s @ Q� � � � � � � � : 7 t @ F � � � � � � � � : H E 4 w > ? ? J > F s 7 t @ � � � � � � � � � � ? > F R E F 7 t @ ? @ J 7 N I Q 4 6 @ 7 t @ s > Q @ G 7 ? > F R At 7 7 v A � � G P F P s P N w v s N s @ � G P � v Q E y @ G 7 6 � > F L G P F P s P � 6 v Q > F 5 w E E s N t 7 � ? Nx @ t E v @ 7 t P 7 H E 4 G P F P 7 7 @ F s 7 t @ O 4 u ? > G U @ @ 7 > F 5 N } t @ 7 > � @ P F s ? E G P 7 > E F E J 7 t @ � @ @ 7 > F 5 G P F u @ J E 4 F s E F 7 t @P 7 7 P G t @ s F E 7 > G @ N 3 ? 7 @ Q F P 7 > | @ ? H : 7 E v Q E | > s @ 7 t @ O Q E y @ G 7 7 @ P � w > 7 t H E 4 Q G E � � @ F 7 6 E Q J E Q J 4 Q 7 t @ Q > F J E Q � P 7 > E F :v ? @ P 6 @ @ � P > ? 4 6 P 7 M t P w F P N v @ s s ? @ � 6 7 P F 7 @ G N G E � E Q G P ? ? M 7 P F 7 @ G P 7 z K 9 C { � 8 B L B < K < N x Q > 7 7 @ F G E � � @ F 7 6 G P FP ? 6 E u @ � P > ? @ s E Q J P � @ s 7 E 7 t @ 4 F s @ Q 6 > 5 F @ s N= E Q � E Q @ > F J E Q � P 7 > E F : v ? @ P 6 @ | > 6 > 7 7 t @ O Q E y @ G 7 w @ u 6 > 7 @ : E Q G E F 7 P G 7 4 6 P 7 P F H 7 > � @ NM > F G @ Q @ ? H :h � W o � � c c � o h � � � � o � � ¡ ¢h ` a j Z a m Y k k b YM @ F > E Q O Q E y @ G 7 U P F P 5 @ Q£ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ª « ¬ ® ¯ ® ° ¨ °± ² ³ ¦ § ¨ © ª « ¬ ® ¯ ´ µ ª ¶ · ² ¸ ¹ ² º » ¤ ¼ ¼ ¥ ¤ ½ ¾ ¿ ² ¹ ¿ ¤ À º À Á ÂS F G ? E 6 4 Q @ A Ã Á ¿ Ä À ¤ Á Å ± Ä ¹ ² ¥ Æ Ç È ¥ Ä À É ¤ ¤ ¿ Ä ¹ ÊD D N Ë t ? P > Q @ O P Q Q Ì : w v s D P F P s P D E Q v E Q P 7 > E F
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ! " � � ! � � � � # � � � ! " � � ! � � �
$ % & % ' ( ) * + * , ) ,- . / 0 1 2 3 4 0 5 6 &4 5 6 ' ( . ( % 2 6 / 7 8 9 9 . / 2: ; * , , < ( = > 1 ( ? . / @ < ( ? 2 2 ( A 1 ' (B 2 ? & % ' + 8 CC ) - ) - DE 2 1 ? - ? = - . / 0 1 2 3 4 0 5 6 & +F G H I J H K L M N I O O I P Q H N O Q H R S O L P H S K F T S U S J I G O S V M W I W H L M I F T S X H P O K S T O Q H I Y S Z H [ \ H M O L S M H N U T S X H P O ] ^ JN H J P T L Y H N L M O Q H M S O L P H _ ` U N a I M I N I a S T U S T I O L S M b ` U N c L J U T S U S J L M W O S N H Z H G S U O Q H d U T L M W ` S S N e L M Nf I T \ L M g Q H g S ` M J Q L U S K a H M O T H e H G G L M W O S M _ e H G G L M W O S M a S h M O i _ j M O I T L S ] g h T Y L M H P S S T N L M I O H J I T H I JK S G G S ` J k d U T L M W ` S S N g h T Y L M H a S S T N L M I O H Jg h T Y L M H l m I O L O h N H m S M W L O h N HT n o p ] q r p s s q t [ r u ] o n n n v u tT w o p ] q x u n x s t [ r u ] o u o s s q tT p o p ] q r q n o p t [ r u ] o u n w u q tT o o p ] q r p w q v t [ r u ] p x r s r v ty S h T S T W I M L z I O L S M Q I J Y H H M L M P G h N H N S M O Q H U T S X H P O { J P S M J h G O I O L S M N L J O T L Y h O L S M G L J O ] e H \ I i P S M O I P O i S h L MO Q H M H I T K h O h T H T H W I T N L M W O Q H U T S X H P O I M N U S O H M O L I G H M Z L T S M \ H M O I G L M K S T \ I O L S M i S h T I W H M P i \ I i U S J J H J J O SI J J L J O L M O Q H U H T \ L O O L M W U T S P H J J ] | K S h T P S M O I P O L M K S T \ I O L S M J Q S h G N Y H I \ H M N H N _ U G H I J H P S M O I P O O Q Hh M N H T J L W M H N I O i S h T H I T G L H J O P S M Z H M L H M P H ]e H G S S } K S T ` I T N O S ` S T } L M W ` L O Q i S h _ I M N S Y O I L M L M W i S h T Z I G h I Y G H L M U h O _ I J O Q L J U T S X H P O U T S W T H J J H JO Q T S h W Q O Q H T H W h G I O S T i I U U T S Z I G J U T S P H J J ] g S U T S Z L N H O Q H U T S X H P O O H I \ ` L O Q i S h T P S \ \ H M O J S T K S T K h T O Q H TL M K S T \ I O L S M _ U G H I J H H \ I L G h J I O ~ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � S T P I G G h J I O n [ r r r [ q n w [ w o u n S Tb x u s c q n w [ w o u u ] e T L O O H M P S \ \ H M O J P I M I G J S Y H \ I L G H N S T K I � H N O S O Q H h M N H T J L W M H N ]f S T \ S T H L M K S T \ I O L S M I Y S h O O Q H U T S X H P O _ U G H I J H Z L J L O h J I O S h T ` H Y J L O H k ` ` ` ] ` U N [ P I M I N I ] P Id L M P H T H G i _� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� Q G I L T H F I T T � _ � ^ _ F � F� L T ] S K F H T \ L O J I M N V M Z L T S M \ H M O I G d O h N L H JV M P G S J h T H J k R S O L P H S K F T S U S J I G O S V M W I W H L M I F T S X H P Oa a k d Q I ` M I F H N N G H _ d O I M O H P a S M J h G O L M W m O N
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ! " � � ! � � � � # � � � ! " � � ! � � �
$ % & % ' ( ) * + * , ) ,- . / $ 0 1 2 ( (3 2 1 ' ( 4 ( % . 1 5 6 7 8 8 4 5 .) 9 ) : ( ; $ 1 / 0 . < : ( 0 . . ( = > ' ( + * 1 / ? @ 2 2 0? . 0 & % ' + 7 AA ) B ) C DE . > 0 B 0 ; - . / $ 0 1 2 ( ( +F G H I J H K L M N I O O I P Q H N O Q H R S O L P H S K F T S U S J I G O S V M W I W H L M I F T S X H P O K S T O Q H I Y S Z H [ \ H M O L S M H N U T S X H P O ] ^ JN H J P T L Y H N L M O Q H M S O L P H _ ` U N a I M I N I a S T U S T I O L S M b ` U N c L J U T S U S J L M W O S N H Z H G S U O Q H d U T L M W ` S S N e L M Nf I T \ L M g Q H g S ` M J Q L U S K a H M O T H e H G G L M W O S M _ e H G G L M W O S M a S h M O i _ j M O I T L S ] g h T Y L M H P S S T N L M I O H J I T H I JK S G G S ` J k d U T L M W ` S S N g h T Y L M H a S S T N L M I O H Jg h T Y L M H l m I O L O h N H m S M W L O h N HT n o p ] q r p s s q t [ r u ] o n n n v u tT w o p ] q x u n x s t [ r u ] o u o s s q tT p o p ] q r q n o p t [ r u ] o u n w u q tT o o p ] q r p w q v t [ r u ] p x r s r v ty S h T S T W I M L z I O L S M Q I J Y H H M L M P G h N H N S M O Q H U T S X H P O { J P S M J h G O I O L S M N L J O T L Y h O L S M G L J O ] e H \ I i P S M O I P O i S h L MO Q H M H I T K h O h T H T H W I T N L M W O Q H U T S X H P O I M N U S O H M O L I G H M Z L T S M \ H M O I G L M K S T \ I O L S M i S h T I W H M P i \ I i U S J J H J J O SI J J L J O L M O Q H U H T \ L O O L M W U T S P H J J ] | K S h T P S M O I P O L M K S T \ I O L S M J Q S h G N Y H I \ H M N H N _ U G H I J H P S M O I P O O Q Hh M N H T J L W M H N I O i S h T H I T G L H J O P S M Z H M L H M P H ]e H G S S } K S T ` I T N O S ` S T } L M W ` L O Q i S h _ I M N S Y O I L M L M W i S h T Z I G h I Y G H L M U h O _ I J O Q L J U T S X H P O U T S W T H J J H JO Q T S h W Q O Q H T H W h G I O S T i I U U T S Z I G J U T S P H J J ] g S U T S Z L N H O Q H U T S X H P O O H I \ ` L O Q i S h T P S \ \ H M O J S T K S T K h T O Q H TL M K S T \ I O L S M _ U G H I J H H \ I L G h J I O ~ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � S T P I G G h J I O n [ r r r [ q n w [ w o u n S Tb x u s c q n w [ w o u u ] e T L O O H M P S \ \ H M O J P I M I G J S Y H \ I L G H N S T K I � H N O S O Q H h M N H T J L W M H N ]f S T \ S T H L M K S T \ I O L S M I Y S h O O Q H U T S X H P O _ U G H I J H Z L J L O h J I O S h T ` H Y J L O H k ` ` ` ] ` U N [ P I M I N I ] P Id L M P H T H G i _� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� Q G I L T H F I T T � _ � ^ _ F � F� L T ] S K F H T \ L O J I M N V M Z L T S M \ H M O I G d O h N L H JV M P G S J h T H J k R S O L P H S K F T S U S J I G O S V M W I W H L M I F T S X H P Oa a k d Q I ` M I F H N N G H _ d O I M O H P a S M J h G O L M W m O N
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT RENEWABLE ENERGY APPROVAL REPORTS January 2012
160960606
Appendix F6
Telecommunication and Radar System Providers- Comment/Response Summary
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT APPENDIX F6 – TELECOMMUNICATIONS-RADAR - COMMENT/RESPONSE TABLE
telecomm-radar_final.docx 1 of 5
Details of Correspondence Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
NAV CANADA Dave Ferris To Whom it May
Concern Chris Csatlos Separate Letters
Sent letter on August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a
Project Provided turbine coordinates
N/A N/A
Dave Ferris To Whom it May
Concern Chris Csatlos Separate Letters
Sent letter on September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1
N/A N/A
Diane Levesque Letter
Submitted December 17, 2010 Approval received March 7, 2011
Land use Proposal Form + Siting Spreadsheet + 1:50,000 Map, Confirmation Letter from NAV Canada that they have no objection.
N/A
Dave Ferris To Whom it May
Concern Chris Csatlos Separate Letters
Sent Letter on August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting
N/A N/A
Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Alex Beckstead Francine Boucher Separate Letters
Sent letter on August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a
Project Provided turbine coordinates
N/A N/A
Alex Beckstead Francine Boucher Separate Letters
Sent letter on September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1
N/A N/A
Alex Beckstead Francine Boucher
Sent Letter on August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting
N/A N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT APPENDIX F6 – TELECOMMUNICATIONS-RADAR - COMMENT/RESPONSE TABLE
2 of 5 telecomm-radar_final.docx
Details of Correspondence Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Separate Letters Department of National Defence
Toufic Haddad, Aerospace and Telecommunications Engineering Support Squadron (ATESS), National Defence
Letter
Sent letter on August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a
Project Provided turbine coordinates
N/A N/A
Andrew Risk, Department of National Defence
Letter
Sent letter on August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a
Project Provided turbine coordinates
N/A N/A
Mario Lavoie, Spectrum Engineering Technician
Emailed August 12, 2010 Provided Notice of Proposal to Engage
in a Renewable Energy Project for the Springwood Wind Project
Approval received August 30, 2010
The proposal has been reviewed in respect to DND radiocommunication systems and no objections were raised.
N/A
Andrew Risk Email
Received email August 25, 2011 Initial analysis of the proposed Project
completed based on latitude and longitude figures identified.
Assessment revealed no impact to DND, Air Traffic Control, Air Defence Radars.
We have no objections to your Project as submitted.
Should there be any changes to the site please re-submit the proposal for another assessment.
Email sent August 26, 2010 Thank you for your
evaluation. The guidelines set forth in
the RABC and CanWEA document identifies DND as an organization that must be consulted with during the planning and development phase of a wind farm, if the site is within 60 km of DND Air Traffic Control Search Radar.
Requests that DND review the Project site to ensure
N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT APPENDIX F6 – TELECOMMUNICATIONS-RADAR - COMMENT/RESPONSE TABLE
telecomm-radar_final.docx 3 of 5
Details of Correspondence Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
that the Project is compatible with DND activities.
Also requested the opportunity to work with DND to clarify the areas of concern and in presenting potential mitigation, should any issues be identified by DND.
Toufic Haddad, Aerospace and Telecommunications Engineering Support Squadron (ATESS)
Letter
Sent letter on September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1
N/A N/A
Andrew Risk, Department of National Defence
Letter
Sent letter on September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1
N/A N/A
Toufic Haddad, Aerospace and Telecommunications Engineering Support Squadron (ATESS)
Letter
Sent Letter on August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting
N/A N/A
Andrew Risk Letter
Sent Letter on August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting
N/A N/A
Canadian Coast Guard Lee Goldberg, Canadian
Coast Guard Email
Sent email on September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1
N/A N/A
XNCR, Windfarm Coordinator
Lee H. Goldberg, Radio Communications System, Wind Farm
Sent Email September 24, 2010 Provided Notice of Public Meeting #1
for Springwood Wind Project
Received Email response October 5, 2010
Based on the proposed location of the wind farm, the Canadian Coast Guard does
N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT APPENDIX F6 – TELECOMMUNICATIONS-RADAR - COMMENT/RESPONSE TABLE
4 of 5 telecomm-radar_final.docx
Details of Correspondence Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Coordinator Email
not have any communication or radar sites in the immediate area; therefore, the Canadian Coast Guard has no concerns.
Ministry of Government Services Lou Battiston Letter and Notice
Sent Letter August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a
Project Provided turbine coordinates
N/A N/A
Lou Battiston Letter and Notice
Sent email on September 22, 2010 Attached Notice of Public Meeting #1
N/A N/A
Lou Battiston Sent Letter and Notice Mark Fox, Network Radio
Engineer Received Email
Sent email August 31, 2011 to Lou Battiston
Notice of Final Public Meeting
Received Email September 28, 2011
Based on our analysis of the attached Notice, it is unlikely to affect the operations of Ontario’s public safety mobile radio system
Please be advised that a reassessment will be required should the project/study area boundaries change.
Please update your contact information based on information provided.
Contact List updated with information provided
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Martin Levert Letter
Sent letter on August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a
Project Provided turbine coordinates
None N/A
SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT APPENDIX F6 – TELECOMMUNICATIONS-RADAR - COMMENT/RESPONSE TABLE
telecomm-radar_final.docx 5 of 5
Details of Correspondence Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team
Martin Levert Letter
Sent letter on September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1
None N/A
Martin Levert Letter
Sent Letter on August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting
None N/A
Radio Advisory Board of Canada To Whom it May Concern Email
Sent email on September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1
None N/A
To Whom it May Concern Email
Sent email August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting
None N/A
Environment Canada Lillian Yao Email
Sent email on September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1
None N/A
Lillian Yao Email
Sent email August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting
None N/A
top related